!       —  .  -    - 

PA 

305 

UC-NRLF 

G35 

1897 

111 

MAIN 

B    H    D3S    111 

""*  * 


>N 


ON  THE 

USE  OF  m*  WITH  THE  PARTICIPLE 

IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK. 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED   TO  THE   BOARD   OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES   OF 

THE  JOHNS    HOPKINS    UNIVERSITY    FOR   THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR   OF  PHILOSOPHY. 


BY 


WILLIAM  FRANCIS  GALLAWAY. 


BALTIMORE: 

JOHN    MURPHY   &   CO. 

1897. 


ON  THE 

USE  OF  mi  WITH  THE  PARTICIPLE 

IN  CLASSICAL  GREEK. 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 


BY 


WILLIAM  FRANCIS  GALLAWAY. 


rV     of  Tax  ^  ' 


BALTIMORE: 

JOHN    MURPHY   &   CO 
1897. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Introduction, 5 

1.  Subject, 5 

2.  Scope, 6 

3.  General  view  of  ov  and  yA\,       ------  7 

4.  General  view  of  the  Participle,          -        -        -        -        -  11 

5.  Combination  of  the  Negatives  with  the  Participle,  -        -  13 

I. — M^  with  the  Participle,  the  Principal  Verb  being  Ex- 
pressed,           14 

1.  In  Imperative  Sentences,   -------  14 

2.  In  Optative  Sentences,        -------  24 

3.  With  Verbs  of  Swearing, 27 

4.  In  Final  Sentences,    --------  28 

5.  In  Conditional  Clauses  with  ei  and  Finite  Verb  Expressed,  30 

6.  In  Generic  Relative  Sentences,  ------  35 

7.  Elliptical  Expressions  et  ,idj,  Saov,  %<ra  p4  with  the  Parti- 

ciple,         38 

8.  With  the  Infinitive, 40 

9.  Supplementary  Participle  with  nt,    -----  45 
10.   In  Interrogative  Sentences,         .--..-  46 

II. — The  Independent  Participle  with  ^, 49 

1.  Conditional,        ---------  49 

(a)  Participle  and  finite  verb  antithetical  or  parallel,      -  50 

(6)  Pure  conditional, -  51 

2.  Concessive  Participle,          -------  56 

3.  The  Generic  Participle  with  p4,  -----  *       59 

(a)  With  the  article, 59 

(6)  Without  the  article — participle  being  in  the  predi- 
cative position,       -------  63 

(c)  Without  the  article,  not  in  the  predicative  position,  65 

4.  M$j  ob  with  the  Participle, 67 

5.  Miscellaneous, 69 

III.— Conclusion, 75 

IV.— Bibliography, 79 

3 


209393 


ON  THE  USE  OF  M>*  WITH  THE  PARTICIPLE  IN 
CLASSICAL  GREEK. 


Introduction. 
1 .    Subject. 


In  classical  Greek  the  spheres  of  ov  and  fir]  were  more  or  less 
clearly  differentiated.  But  in  later  time,  when  the  appreciation 
for  the  delicate  shades  of  meaning  conveyed  by  these  negatives 
had  been  lost,  the  classical  distinctions  were,  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent,  effaced.  For  example,  in  Greek  of  the  best  period  firj  is 
the  regular  negative  employed  in  the  protasis  of  the  conditional 
sentence,  the  few  passages  in  which  ov  occurs  being  readily 
explained  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  language.  For 
either  a  single  word  is  negatived,  or  the  condition  is  really 
equivalent  to  a  causal  sentence  (el — ye  —  eirel),  or  the  negative  of 
the  original  thought  is  retained.  In  Hellenistic  Greek,  however, 
e.  g.,  that  of  the  New  Testament,  ov  regularly  follows  el  when  a 
fact  is  expressed  and  even  in  generic  and  future  conditions.1 

Cf.  John,  V,  47  :  el  Be  rots  eiceivov  ypd/ifiacnv  ov  Trio-revere — 
ib.,  X,  37:  el  ov  ttocco  /ere — Heb.,  XII,  25:  el  yap  ifceivoc  ov/c 
e^e<f>vyov — I  Cor.,  IX,  2 ;  XI,  6 ;  XV,  32 ;  James,  ill,  2 :  el  ™?  ev 
\6yw  ov  irralei — Luke,  xr,  8  :    el  koi  ov  8ooo-ei — Rom.,  VIII,  9. 

Modern  Greek  goes  one  step  further  than  this  and  uses  the 
negative  8iv  (probably  short  for  ovSev)  in  all  kinds  of  conditional 
sentences.2 

The  encroachment  of  ov  on  fir/,  however,  is  slight  in  com- 
parison with  that  of  firj  on  ov.     The  lines  of  this  intrusion  have 

1  Cf.  Jebb,  Appendix  to  Vincent  and  Dickson's  Primer  of  Modern  Greek. 
'  Cf.  Mullach,  Grammatik  der  griechischen  Vulgarsprache,  pp.  389-90. 

2  5 


6       On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

been  clearly  pointed  out  by  Prof.  Gildersleeve,  American  Journal 
of  Philology,  i,  pp.  45-57. 

They  are  as  follows  :  0-)  m  with  the  infinitive  in  oratio 
obliqua — an  extension  of  the  classical  usage  after  verbs  of  assev- 
eration and  belief;  (2)  on  firj  with  the  finite  verb  as  a  form  of 
oratio  obliqua — perhaps  due  to  the  desire  to  avoid  hiatus,  which 
frequently  led  later  writers  to  sacrifice  grammar  to  artistic  effect ;  . 
(3)  causal  firj ;  (4)  fir]  in  relative  sentences,  and  lastly  participial 
firj,  where  in  all  probability  the  most  extensive  invasion  took 
place.  Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  ov  in  the  conditional  sen- 
tence, modern  Greek  makes  an  advance  on  the  writers  of  the 
post-classical  period  and  does  not  combine  any  negative  but  firj 
with  the  participle.1 

In  view,  therefore,  of  this  gradual  extension  and  finally  uni- 
versal application  of  firj  with  the  participle,  it  becomes  highly 
important  to  make  a  thorough  examination  of  the  classical  usage 
in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  later  writers  were  justified  in  their 
use  of  fir]. 

2.    Scope. 

To  this  end  the  entire  body  of  classical  Greek,  from  Homer 
to  Demosthenes,  has  been  examined  and  all  the  instances  of  firj 
with  the  participle  noted.  From  the  material  thus  collected  we 
hope  to  be  able  to  show  how  far  and  in  what  connection  the 
writers  of  the  best  period  made  use  of  this  construction. 

It  may  be  well  to  cite  here  a  list  of  the  authors  examined  and 
editions  referred  to. 

Homer.     Ameis-Hentze. 

Hesiod.     Flach,  Teubner,  1878. 

Lyric  Poets.     Bergk,  Teubner,  1878. 

Aeschylus.    Weil,  Teubner,  1889. 

Sophocles.     Dindorf-Mekler,  Teubner,  1889. 

Euripides.     Nauck,  Teubner,  1891. 

Fragmenta  Tragicorum  Greecorum.     Nauck,  Teubner,  1889. 

Aristophanes.     Bergk,  Teubner,  1884. 

Fragmenta  Coraicorum.     Kock,  Teubner,  1880-88. 

1  Mullach,  1.  c. ;  Gildersleeve,  1.  a,  p.  66. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr}  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.       7 

Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Xenophon.     Teubner  editions. 

Plato.     Teubner. 

Orators.     Teubner. 

All  bracketed  portions  of  the  text  and  all  laws  and  documents 
have  been  omitted,  unless  cited  for  purposes  of  comparison.  In 
the  case  of  Hypereides,  only  the  speech  'T7re/j  ILv^eviinrov  has 
been  examined,  as  the  fragmentary  state  of  the  others  would 
invalidate  any  argument  that  might  be  drawn  from  them.  The 
sixth  volume  of  Plato,  containing  the  spurious  dialogues,  opoi, 
letters,  etc.,  has  also  been  left  out  of  our  investigation.  The 
doubtful  dialogues  of  Plato  and  the  doubtful  orations  of  the 
orators  have  been  included,  as  our  object  is  not  so  much  to  show 
the  individual  usage  of  any  special  author  as  the  origin  and 
development  of  the  construction  in  the  Greek  of  the  best  period. 

Before  entering  upon  our  subject  proper,  it  is  necessary  to 
discuss  briefly  three  points:  (1)  the  use  of  ov  and  /irj  in  classical 
Greek ;  (2)  the  function  of  the  participle,  and  (3)  the  combination 
of  the  negatives  with  the  participle. 

3.    General  View  of  ov  and  firj. 

Both  ov  and  fir}  are  doubtless  Indo-European.  We  are  sure 
of  this  in  the  case  of  fir},  which  is  identical  with  the  Sanskrit, 
Zend,  and  Old  Persian  prohibitive  particle  mdyl  and  we  may 
perhaps  connect  ov  with  Zend  ava,  Latin  hand. 

The  etymology,  however,  gives  us  very  little  except  the  original 
tone  of  firj.  But  we  can  afford  to  dispense  with  its  aid  in  seeking 
to  determine  the  classical  distinctions  between  the  two  negative 
particles,  for  already  in  Homer  their  uses  are  so  clearly  defined 
that  there  is  no  possibility  of  confusion.2  What  then  are  the 
distinctions  now  generally  accepted  ?  In  brief  as  follows  :  ov  is 
the  negative  of  fact,  firj,  in  accordance  with  its  derivation,  of  the 
will ;  ov  is  objective  and  belongs  to  the  thing  spoken  of,  fir}  is 
subjective  and  refers  to  the  thought  and  will  of  the  speaker.3 
These  broad  outlines  were  fully  recognized  and  clearly  marked 

1  Cf.  Prellwitz,  Etymologische  Worterbuch,  sub  voc. 

s  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  1.  c,  p.  48. 

3  Cf.  Baumlein,  Die  griechischen  Partikeln,  p.  257. 


8       On  the  Use  of  Mi]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Gi%eek. 

by  the  ancients.1  Negation  with  ov  was  called  apwqo-is  =  denial. 
So  Hesychius  says  ov  =  €7ripprjfia  dpvrjrcKov  Kara  areprjaiv.  On 
the  other  hand,  negation  with  fitf  was  called  airayopevo-is  = 
prohibition. 

First,  then,  let  us  treat  briefly  the  negative  ov.  This  being 
the  negative  of  the  statement,  we  find  it  combined  (1)  with  the 
indicative  of  the  independent  sentence  and  everything  that  repre- 
sents the  indicative;  (2)  with  the  optative  with  av  =  potential  of 
the  present  and  future,  and  with  the  past  tenses  of  the  indicative 
with  av  =  the  potential  of  the  past.  These  sentences  are,  it  is 
true,  subjective,  but  they  are  assertions  and  not  mere  conceptions, 
and  hence  take  ov,  not  /a??.2  (3)  ov  is  used  with  the  subjunctive 
in  Homer  when  it  is  equivalent  to  the  future;  (4)  in  questions 
that  expect  an  affirmative  answer;  (5)  in  subordinate  sentences 
that  represent  the  indicative,  i.  e.,  the  indicative  or  optative  after 
otl  or  a>?,  relative  sentences  that  express  a  mere  statement,  tem- 
poral, causal,  and  consecutive  sentences  with  the  finite  verb,  the 
infinitive  after  verbs  of  saying  and  thinking,  and  the  participle 
when  it  represents  a  sentence  in  which  ov  would  have  been  used, 
unless  the  force  of  the  principal  verb  is  sufficient  to  cause  /^. 
(6)  ov  is  also  used  to  negative  a  single  word  or  to  change  it  into 
its  opposite,  e.  g.,  ovtc  ayaOos  =  /catcos.  Here  it  forms  a  quasi- 
compound,  and  the  union  is  so  close  that,  as  a  rule,  ov  remains 
even  though  the  phrase  represents  or  forms  part  of  a  sentence  that 
demands  firj.  Cf.  Iliad,  in,  288  fol. :  el  .  .  .  Upta/mos  Tlpidfioio  re 
TralSes  rlveiv  ov/c  i6e\(ocrtv  ;  Lysias,  XIII,  62  :  el  p,ev  ov  iroWol 
rfaav? 

At  times  also  the  image  of  oratio  obliqua  comes  in  and  preserves 
ov  where  we  should  expect  pr).  Cf.  Plato,  Gorgias,  458  E  : 
taar  ev  o^\o>  iriOavov  elvat  ov  StSdaKOvra  aXka  ireiOovra.  <$>r}s 
precedes.4 

This,  then,  is  all  that  need  be  said  of  the  negative  ov.  For 
examples  under  any  of  the  above  heads  see  Baumlein. 

1  Cf.  Ety.  Magnum,  585-49  to  586-30,  also  under  oi>Xi- 

*C(.  Aken,  Tempus  und  Modus,  \\  54,  72,  315;  Baumlein,  p.  259. 

*  Aken,  Frohberger,  and  Rehdantz  deny  this,  especially  in  the  conditional  sen- 
tence, oi,  they  say,  represents  the  negative  of  the  original  thought.  Cf.  Aken, 
\  229;  Frohberger  to  Lysias,  13,  62. 

4Cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  vn,  174. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,       9 

We  turn  dow  to  the  consideration  of  fir).  We  have  already 
seen  that  this  was  originally  not  a  negative  at  all,  but  a  pro- 
hibitive particle,  an  interjection  accompanied  by  a  gesture  of 
repulsion  or  rejection.1  As  such  it  was  connected  in  Sanskrit  with 
the  injunctive.2  Greek,  however,  has  no  injunctive,  the  functions 
of  which  have  been  merged  into  the  subjunctive.  Hence  we 
find  in  the  earliest  monuments  of  Greek  literature  prohibition 
expressed  by  the  aorist  subjunctive  with  fir).  The  present  sub- 
junctive appears  only  in  the  first  person  plural.  For  example, 
cf.  Homer,  Iliad,  u,  435 : 

fir/Ken  vvv  Bj)6^  avOi  Xeycofieda,  fir/B'  en  Br/pbv 
afi/3aWa>/i€da  ep<yov. 

The  original  prohibitive  force  of  fir)  with  the  present  subjunc- 
tive also  appears  in  hesitating  statements,  e.  g.,  Plato,  Gorgias, 
462  E  :   firj  aypocKorepov  fj  to  a\r)0e<;  elirelv. 

From  the  subjunctive  fir)  spread  naturally  to  the  imperative. 
For  the  imperative  was  used  originally  only  in  a  positive  sense, 
prohibition  being  always  expressed  by  firj  with  the  subjunctive. 
This  step  had  already  been  taken  by  Sanskrit,  which  in  the  classi- 
cal period  combined  md  with  the  imperative  and  optative  as  well 
as  with  the  injunctive,  fir)  with  the  imperative,  then,  is  but  an 
analogical  imitation  of  fir)  with  the  subjunctive. 

We  next  find  fir)  combined  with  the  optative  in  the  inde- 
pendent sentence,  a  construction  that  is  readily  understood  when 
we  remember  that  the  pure  optative  expresses  all  shades  of  mean- 
ing from  a  command  to  a  simple  wish.  Cf.  Homer,  Iliad,  xxrv, 
178  :   fcrjpvl;  Tt?  €7rocTo ;   Od.,  XXIV,  491  :   igeXdcbv  Tts  foot* 

The  next  extension  of  fir)  was  to  the  infinitive,  which  when 
used  as  an  imperative  takes  fir)  as  a  matter  of  course.  Likewise 
after  verbs  of  will  and  command,  povXofiai,  /ceXevco,  etc.,  the 
infinitive  has  an  imperative  force  and  hence  is  negatived  by  fir]. 
The  use  of  this  negative  was  further  extended  to  verbs  that 
involve  the  will,  i.  e.,  verbs  of  swearing,  believing,  etc.    Hence  in 

1  Cf.  Vogrinz,  Horn.  Gram.,  p.  234. 

aCf.  Delbriick,  Altind.  Syn.,  \  267;  Miller,  A.  J.  P.,  13,  423. 

8  Cf.  Aken,  \  49 ;  Whitney,  Skt.  Gram.,  \  573. 


10     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

the  early  period  pr)  was  the  negative  of  the  infinitive  throughout. 
When  oratio  obliqua  came  in,  the  infinitive  after  verbs  of  saying 
and  thinking  being  the  representative  of  the  indicative,  naturally 
took  ov. 

Strictly  speaking,  firj  has  no  right  to  be  combined  ( with  the 
indicative,  the  proper  negative  of  which  is,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  ov.  Only  with  great  difficulty,  therefore,  did  it  take  this 
step,  and  it  appears  in  only  a  few  constructions — as,  for  instance, 
in  the  protasis  of  the  unreal  condition,  past  wishes,  oaths,  ques- 
tions that  anticipate  a  negative  answer,  oiroxi  with  the  future 
indicative,  with  verbs  of  fear  when  the  action  is  present  or  past, 
and  in  purpose  clauses  with  the  historical  tenses.  Finally  fiij 
came  to  be  used  with  the  participle,  and  it  is  with  the  develop- 
ment and  use  of  this  construction  that  our  present  investigation 
deals. 

We  may  sum  up  the  uses  of  firj  in  classical  Greek,  all  of  which 
go  back  to  the  will  of  the  speaker,  as  follows  : 

I.    In  the  independent  sentence  firj  is  used  with  : 
the  subjunctive  =  prohibition  ; 
the  imperative ; 

the  optative  and  past  tenses  of  the  indicative  in  wishes ; 
hesitating  statements  and  dubitative  questions ; 
questions  that  anticipate  a  negative  answer ; 
oaths. 
II.    In  the  dependent  sentence  it  is  used  : 

after  verbs  of  fear — where  the  subordinate  clause  is  only 

semi-dependent ; 
in  final  clauses  with  Xva,  &>?,  07ra><?  ; 
in  the  protasis  of  conditional  clauses  ; 
in  relative  sentences  if  they  express  final,  conditional,  or 

generic  relations; 
in  temporal  sentences  when  they  are  equal  to  conditional 

or  generic  sentences; 
with  the  infinitive  after  verbs  and  expressions  that  involve 

the  will  and  after  cocre  ; 
and  finally  with  the  participle  when  it  represents  or  forms 

part  of  a  sentence  that  demands  ym). 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     11 

The  combinations  of  the  negatives  ov  fjurj  and  firj  ov  should  also 
be  considered.  But  it  is  not  our  intention  to  enter  into  a  full 
discussion  of  the  negatives.  We  only  propose  to  give  a  general 
view,  a  brief  outline,  in  order  that  the  development  of  fitf  with 
the  participle  may  be  seen  in  its  historical  connection.  Hence 
we  may  pass  over  ov  fir}  as  having  no  direct  bearing  on  our 
subject  and  postpone  the  discussion  of  firj  ov  until  we  come  to 
that  chapter  in  our  treatment  of  \x,r\  with  the  participle.1 

4.    General  View  of  the  Participle. 

Another  preliminary  subject  that  calls  for  attention  is  a  general 
view  of  the  participle  and  its  employment  as  a  representative  of 
the  finite  clause. 

The  Greeks  were  very  fond  of  the  participle,  and  hence  they 
not  only  developed  a  large  number  of  forms,  but  also  used  them 
freely.2  This  free  use  is  shown  in  two  directions :  (1)  by  the 
actual  number  of  participles  used,  and  (2)  by  the  great  freedom 
with  which  the  participle  is  employed  as  a  substitute  for  the  finite 
verb.  As  to  the  first,  and  the  stylistic  effect  produced  thereby, 
since  it  has  no  direct  connection  with  our  subject,  we  may  pass  it 
over  without  comment.3  It  is  with  the  second  that  we  are  more 
directly  concerned. 

We  might  suppose  that  the  Homeric  poems,  the  first  monu- 
ments of  Greek  literature,  would  show  us  the  participle  in  an 
undeveloped  state.  And  so  they  do  to  some  extent,  but  not  nearly 
so  much  as  we  should  suppose.  Indeed,  Classen,  as  cited  above, 
p.  44,  even  claims,  on  the  basis  of  a  complete  study  of  the  parti- 
ciple in  Homer,  that  the  Homeric  use  is  as  fully  developed  as 
that  of  later  times. 

"  Wir  finden,"  he  says,  "  den  ganzen  reichtum  an  form  en, 
welchen  die  griechische  sprache  im  participium  entwickelt  hat, 
in  der  homerischen  poesie  entfaltet,  und  wir  sehen  ihn  mit  einer 

1  For  the  treatment  of  ov  ^,  cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  in,  202  fol. ;  Morris, 
Proceedings  Arner.  Phil.  Asso.,  1882,  vol.  13,  p.  35. 

2Cf.  Classen,  Beobachtungen  iiber  den  homerischen  Sprachgebrauch,  p.  41. 

3  For  treatment,  cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  ix,  137  ff. ;  J.  H.  U.  Circular, 
1888,  p.  23. 


12     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

freiheit  und  feinheit  jedera  bediirfniss  des  gedankens  angepasst, 
die  in  keiner  beziehung  dem  gebildetsten  ausdruck  der  attischen 
prosa  nachsteht."  We  must,  1  think,  accept  this  with  some 
modification,  for  while  it  may  be  true  that  all  the  germs  of  later 
constructions  are  found  in  Homer,  it  is  nevertheless  also  true  that 
the  participle  in  these  early  poems  has  not  the  same  sweep  as 
in  later  works,  but  is  still  largely  adjectival  in  its  character ;  and 
by. nothing  is  this  adjectival  nature  better  shown  than  by  the 
reluctance,  we  might  almost  say  absolute  refusal,  of  Homer  to 
join  firj  with  the  participle. 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  the  development  of  the  participle  is 
largely  pre-Homeric,  we  shall  simply  give  a  brief  resume*  of  its 
use  in  classical  Greek,  without  attempting  to  trace  its  growth. 

The  three  broad  divisions  into  which  the  uses  of  the  participle 
fall  are  the  nominal,  the  verbal,  and  the  supplementary.  Under 
the  first  head  come  those  participles  which  are  used  to  modify 
a  noun  like  an  ordinary  attributive  adjective,  e.  g.,  rod  irapovTos 
aywvos,  Dem.,  18,  12,  or  with  the  article  as  a  substantive,  e.  g., 
ra  ireirpa^fieva,  Dem.,  18,  4,  or  as  a  predicate  with  el/ii,  e.  g., 
/3aSi%(ov  eifd,  Aristoph.,  Ranse,  36. 

Under  the  second  head  come  those  cases  where  the  participle 
modifies  the  verb,  not  the  noun,  taking  the  place  of  a  subordinate 
clause.  So  widespread  is  this  use  that  almost  without  exception 
may  a  subordinate  clause  be  thus  represented.  So  the  various 
relations  of  time,  cause,  finality,  concession,  limitation,  condition, 
manner,  result,  may  all  be  expressed  by  the  participle.  But  under 
temporal  clauses  we  must  exclude  ea>?  av  with  the  subjunctive, 
which  cannot  be  so  represented,1  and  under  final  clauses  verbs  of 
fear,  after  which  the  participle  is  not  used.2  After  cocrre,  also,  the 
participle  is  rare,  and  found  chiefly  after  verbs  of  perception  in 
the  leading  clause.8 

Under  the  head  of  the  supplementary  participle  are  included 
those  cases  in  which  the  participle  is  used  to  complete  the  mean- 

1  According  to  Prof.  Gildersleeve. 

*Cf.  Kiihner,  Ausfuhrliche  Gram.,  $  490, 1,  and  Lodge,  Participle  in  Euripides, 
who  do  not  make  even  these  exceptions,  but  say  that  every  subordinate  clause 
may  be  represented  by  the  participle. 

aCf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  vn,  172. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     13 

ing  of  a  verb,  e.  g.,  ala^vvofiat  Xeycov.  It  very  often  takes  the 
place  of  an  accusative  and  the  infinitive,  e.  g.,  olBd  ae  Xeyovra, 
Xen.,  Cyr.,  1,  6,  6. 


5.    Combination  of  the  Negatives  with  the  Participle. 

After  this  brief  and  rapid  survey  of  the  negatives  and  the  parti- 
ciple, we  are  now  prepared  to  see  how  the  two  were  combined. 

Whatever  was  the  original  feeling  of  the  participle,  it  came  to 
be  regarded,  in  the  classical  period  at  least,  as  an  abridged  sentence. 
This  is  most  manifest,  perhaps,  from  the  fact  that  we  occasionally 
find  el  fiev  with  the  finite  verb  contrasted  with  a  conditional 
participle  with  Be,  or  vice  versa,  e.  g.,  Xen.,  Cyr.,  vni,  1,  12: 
fir)  ovtcov  fiev  olwv  Bet   .   .   .   el  8'  ovtoc  elev  oiovs  Beoc  /ere. 

As  the  representative,  therefore,  of  a  finite  verb,  we  may  state 
it  as  a  general  rule  that  the  participle  takes  the  negative  of  the 
clause  into  which  it  may  be  resolved.  Thus  the  participle  used  as 
an  adjective  or  as  the  representative  of  a  causal  or  adversative 
sentence  would  naturally  take  ov,  since  it  is  then  a  mere  statement 
of  fact  and  has  no  connection  with  the  will ;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  participle  used  as  a  substitute  for  a  conditional  or  a 
concessive  clause  takes  fir),  since  here  the  will  of  the  speaker 
enters.  But  another  element  must  also  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion, i.  e.,  the  influence  of  the  principal  verb  of  the  sentence. 
We  have  already  seen  (p.  8)  that  the  image  of  oratio  obliqua 
is  sometimes  sufficient  to  produce  ov  where  fir]  would  be  more 
natural.  The  opposite  is  also  true.  For  not  infrequently  the 
force  of  the  principal  verb,  especially  an  imperative,  is  sufficient 
to  cause  firj  to  be  used  with  the  participle,  although  the  latter 
would  more  naturally  take  ov.1  This  is  contrary  to  the  view 
held  by  Aken,  Tempus  und  Modus,  pp.  224-227,  who  asserts 
that  the  principal  verb  has  no  influence  whatever  on  the  choice 
of  the  negative  with  the  participle,  but  that  this  choice  depends 
entirely  on  the  nature  of  the  participle  itself.2  This  view,  how- 
ever, is  not  accepted  by  other  grammarians,  and  our  investiga- 

1  Cf.  Kiihner,  \  515,  3,  2 ;  Baumlein,  p.  295. 

2  See  page  227,  where  he  says:  u  Dem  satz  in  welchein  sie  stehen  fur  sich  kann 
kein  influss  zugestanden  werden." 


14     On  the  Use  of  Mr}  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

tion  will  show  that  the  principle  stated  above  is  correct.  Of 
course,  when  the  participle  is  only  loosely  connected  with  the 
main  sentence,  or  is  remote  from  the  principal  verb,  or  where  on 
or  o>9  intervenes,  an  original  ov  may  be  retained. 

Having  thus,  by  our  discussion  of  these  preliminary  points, 
shown  the  place  that  fjurj  with  the  participle  holds  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  negatives,  we  turn  now  to  a  detailed  examination 
of  the  actual  occurrences  of  this  construction  in  classical  Greek, 
following  the  two  broad  lines  just  laid  down  :  (1)  where  the 
participle  forms  part  of  a  sentence  that  demands  ftij,  and  (2)  where 
the  participle  by  the  nature  of  its  own  predication  takes  fir}. 


I. 

mr}  with  the  participle,  the  principal  verb  being 
Expressed. 

1.    In  Imperative  Sentences. 

Following  the  course  of  the  development  of  fir}  as  already 
traced  (pp.  9  f.),  let  us  see  first  to  what  extent  the  participle  is 
used  as  the  representative  of  the  imperative  sentence  and  how  far 
the  force  of  the  principal  verb  extends  when  the  participle  is  not 
capable  of  being  resolved  into  another  imperative. 

In  all  there  are  about  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  participles 
negatived  by  fir}  that  form  a  more  or  less  integral  part  of  an 
imperative  clause.  They  may  be  divided  for  the  sake  of  cou- 
venience  into  five  classes :  First,  where  the  participle  agrees  with 
the  subject  of  the  principal  verb  and  may  in  most  cases  be 
resolved  into  another  imperative ;  secondly,  where  the  participle 
is  in  the  genitive  absolute,  either  with  or  without  o>9  ;  thirdly, 
where  the  participle  is  in  the  predicate,  either  taking  the  place 
of  an  object  clause  or  agreeing  with  the  object  of  the  verb; 
fourthly,  where  the  imperative  appears  in  an  indirect  form,  i.  e., 
after  verbs  like  tceXeva),  irapaivw,  etc.,  and  the  participle  is  con- 
nected with  the  subordinate  clause.  This  really  belongs  under 
the  head  of  the  infinitive,  but  as  being  an  indirect  form  of  the 
imperative  it  may  be  included   here.     The  fifth  class  embraces 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     15 

those  participles  that  cannot  conveniently  be  included  under  the 
other  heads. 

Of  these  classes  the  first  is  by  far  the  largest,  containing  eighty- 
five  examples  out  of  the  total  number.  It  does  not  appear  in 
Homer,  but  two  examples  are  found  in  Hesiod,  i.  e.,  Works  and 
Days,  696,  and  Shield,  98.     The  first  passage  reads : 

aypalos  8e  yvvaifca  rebv  ttotI  ol/cov  ayeaOcu 
firjre  TpcwfcovTcov  irecov  fidXa  tt6X)C  diroXeiiroyv 

flTJT     67Ti^6t9    fiaXd    TTOXkd. 

dyeaOat  is  equivalent  to  an  imperative.  The  other  passage  is 
similar. 

(Such  cases  as  Horn.,  Od.,  ill,  96,  fivBe  re  fi  alSofievo? 
fieiklo-aeo  fiij$>  iXeaipav,  have  not  been  included,  as  here  the 
negatives  go  with  the  verb  and  not  with  the  participles.  For 
similar  examples,  however,  cf.  Od.,  n,  231 ;  Soph.,  Antig.,  267 ; 
Eurip.,  Hecuba,  373;  Plato,  Politicus,  264  A.  We  have  also 
excluded  passages  like  Xen.,  Mem.,  I,  4,  1,  <nce"tydfievoi  fir)  fibvov 
h  ifeeivos  ipcoroov  rj\ey%€v — dWd  zeal  a  \eycov  avvrj/J-epeve — 
SoKifia^ovTcov,  as  here  the  position  of  the  negative  shows  that  it 
belongs  to  the  following  substantive  idea  and  not  so  much  to  the 
participle.  For  similar  examples,  cf.  Hdt,  IV,  46  ;  Aeschines, 
in,  255 ;  Plato,  Crito,  47  D ;  Phjedrus,  260  C ;  Menex.,  247  B ; 
Rep.,  iv,  464  C;  vn,  534  C;  Laws,  vn,  817  C.  Moreover,  not 
only  in  the  case  of  the  imperative,  but  also  in  regard  to  the  other 
constructions  that  follow,  we  have  omitted  those  examples  in 
which  the  negative  precedes  both  participle  and  verb  and  goes 
with  both  of  them,  e.  g.,  in  a  purpose  clause,  Thuc,  in,  22,  2  : 
hiexovre?  ttoXv  f/aav,  oVg)?  tcl  oir\a  fir)  /cpovofieva  7rpo?  aWrfka 
aiadncrtv  irapkypi.) 

In  lyric  poetry,  especially  in  the  hortatory  elegies  of  Tyrtseus 
and  Theognis,  the  construction  is  more  frequently  employed  than 
in  Epic  poetry.  Eight  examples  have  been  noted,  e.  g.,  Pindar, 
Pythia,  iv,  176  f. : 

i^OiaroLai  fir)  yjrevSeaiv  Karafiidvai^  elire  yivvav. 

Of  the  tragedians,  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles  make  but  slight 
use  of  the  participle  as  a  substitute  for  the  imperative.      The 


16     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

former  has  but  two  examples,  the  latter  but  three.  Note  Soph., 
Electra,  1014 : 

avrr)  Be  vovv  <r^e?  aXka  tc5  yjpovvi  irore, 
aOevovaa  firjBiv,  rot?  Kparoicriv  elicadeZv. 

The  participle  is  causal,  but  owing  to  the  preceding  imperative 
(and  possibly  also  to  the  following  infinitive),  the  negative  is 
/jbrj,  not  ov. 

Euripides  is  more  free  in  his  use  of  this  construction  and  has 
sixteen  instances  of  it.  In  some  cases  the  verb  has  to  be  supplied 
from  the  context.     Cf.  Alcestis,  1094 : 

a>9  fitjTTOT  avBpa  rovBe  vv/j,(j)lov  koXwv — 

where  alvei  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  preceding  line.  In  Hera- 
clidae,  263,  fitf  is  due  to  the  prohibitive  force  of  the  sentence : 

AH.    ovkovv  iya)  rcov  ivOdB*  elfil  /cvpios ; 

KO.    fikaTTTOiV  y  i/ceivovs  fMrjBiv,  rjv  re  aaxfrpovrj*;. 

In  Comedy,  we  find  a  few  instances  in  the  minor  poets,  but 
none  in  Aristophanes.  Nor  does  Herodotus  or  Xenophon,  in  his 
historical  works,  use  the  construction.  Thucydides,  however,  has 
seven  instances  of  it,  all  but  one  of  which  occur  in  speeches.  In 
the  other  writings  of  Xenophon  seven  examples  are  found,  five  of 
which  occur  in  the  Cynegeticus,  where,  however,  imperatives  and 
imperative  infinitives  abound. 

Of  the  orators,  Antiphon,  Andocides,  Lysias,  Isaeus,  Lycurgus, 
and  Hypereides  do  not  use  it  at  all.  Isocrates  has  four  examples, 
three  of  which  are  in  the  first  speech,  which  is  generally  regarded 
as  spurious.  Demosthenes,  Aeschines,  and  Deinarchus  have  one 
each.  This  small  number  of  passages  in  the  orators  in  which  the 
imperative  is  represented  by  a  participle  seems  rather  surprising 
at  first,  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  imperatives  used  by 
them ; l  but  we  must  remember  that  the  orators  are  not  wont  to 
use  the  imperative  at  all,  except  under  stress  of  emotion,  and  then 
the  pure  imperative  is  more  appropriate  than  a  participle,  which 
belongs  rather  to  a  leisurely  manner  of  utterance  and  not  to 
passionate  language. 

1  i.  e.,  2,445,  according  to  Miller,  A.  J.  P.,  xnr,  402. 


On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     17 

Plato  bulks  largely,  and  we  should  expect  to  find  a  large 
number  of  examples  in  his  works.  The  total  number,  however,  is 
only  thirty,  fifteen  of  which  occur  in  the  Laws.  Many  dialogues 
have  none  at  all,  many  only  one.  Note  especially  Protag., 
336  C  :  ScaXeyecrdco^/Jbr) — [Acucpov  Xoyov  viroreivcov,  i/c/cpovcov 
rot/?  X070V?  teal  ovk  iOeXcov  BcBovai  Xoyov.  Here  viroreivcov 
continues  the  imperative,  while  i/c/cpovcov  and  ideXcov  are  merely 
descriptive  participles.  Aken,  in  accordance  with  his  theory, 
would  doubtless  say  that  the  difference  in  the  negatives  is  due 
to  this  fact.  But  we  frequently  find  ovk  ideXco  coalescing  into 
a  quasi-compound  and  remaining  unchanged  in  spite  of  its  sur- 
roundings, and  to  such  cause  the  retention  of  ov  here  might 
be  due. 

Aken,  p.  227,  quotes  Gorgias,  463  A,  elire  fiwo'ev  i/xe  mayyv- 
deis,  as  an  example  of  the  final  participle.  It  is,  however,  as  far 
as  we  can  see,  nothing  more  than  a  continuation  of  the  imperative. 
Cf.  Politicus,  269  C  :  Xeye  fivSev  iXXeiTrcov  ;  ib.,  277  E  :  Xeye 
/jLwSev  6/jlov  ye  eve/ca  cittokvcov. 

In  Laws,  VI,  754  A,  we  have  p,-r\  with  the  participle  equivalent 
to  irplv  dv  with  the  finite  verb  :  M?)  tolvvv  <ytyvcoaKovre^  ye 
Trapiofiev  avro  dpprjrov,  fiwo'ev  8iao~a<f>7]o-avT€$  rjfuv  civtoIs,  where 
fMvSev  Stacra<f>r]aavTe<;  =  7rplv  av  Siao-a(f)i]crco/jb€V. 

For  other  examples  of  this  construction,  cf.  Aeschylus,  Sup., 
209;  Eurip.,  Tro.,  1166;  Hdt,,  ix,  45;  Thuc,  II,  2,  3;  44,  2; 
Dem.,  xx,  90;  Plato,  Laws,  11,  653  B. 

For  convenience  of  reference,  and  also  to  show  at  a  glance  the 
range  of  a  construction,  a  complete  list  of  the  passages  in  which 
that  construction  is  found  is  appended  to  each  section,  unless  all 
the  passages  have  been  cited  in  the  treatment  of  that  section. 
For  the  construction  just   treated  we  have  the  following  list : 


Hesiod : 

Op.  et  D.,  696  f. 

Scutum,  98. 

Mimnermus : 
VII,  1  f. 

Pindar : 
Pythia,  iv,  100  (176). 

Theognis : 
283, 
364, 
764. 

Tyrtseus : 
x,  14. 
xii,  44. 
xv,  5. 

Aeschylus: 

Agam.,  510, 

906. 

18     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 


Sophocles : 

Electra,  1014. 

O.  R.,  310. 

0.  C,  489. 

Thucydides : 

1,  124,  2. 

n,  87,  8. 

in,  40,  7, 

48,  1. 

iv,  17,  3. 

V,  20,  2. 

vii,  77,  5. 

Plato: 
Theset.,  153  E. 
Sophistes,  239  B, 
240  A, 
242  B. 

Euripides: 

Alcestis,  1094. 

Hec    874 

Politicus,  263  E, 
2'69  C, 
277  E. 

Philebus,  14  B, 

Heraclidse,  175, 
263, 
619. 
H.  F.,  505, 
1110. 
Iph.  Au.,  140, 
409, 
818. 

Xenophon : 
Cyr.,  in,  1,  37. 
vii,  5,  20. 
Cyn.,  11,  1. 
iv,  5. 
vi,  10,  14. 
x,  12. 

28  D, 

58  D. 
Laches,  189  B. 
Protag.,  336  C. 
(jrorgias,  463  A. 
Hip.  Maior,  398  D. 
Kep.,  11,  361  C. 
Laws,  vi,  754  A. 

Medea,  1122. 

Or.,  657. 

Tro.,  723. 

Phce.,  1234. 

Frag.,  286,  4, 

779. 

Isocrates : 

1,  13,  17,  42. 

in,  57. 

vii,  818  E. 
vm,  828  B, 

844  A, 

D, 

849  E. 

ix,  868  C, 

871  A, 

Demosthenes : 
xxii,  47. 

879  D, 

Comici  Minores: 

Pherecrates,  80. 

Strattis,  37. 

Aeschines : 
in,  247. 

882  B. 

x,  887  C. 

xi,  919  D, 

Antiphanes,  52,  14. 
/Menander,  128,  3.]1 
V      Demonax,  2.      / 

Deinarchus : 
in,  20. 

932  C. 

xn,  943  C, 

958  E. 

Our  second  division  of  /jltj  with  the  participle  in  imperative 
sentences  is  that  in  which  the  participle  appears  in  the  genitive 
absolute.  This  class  is  much  smaller  than  the  preceding,  and 
does  not  invariably  take  firj,  ov,  in  fact,  being  found  almost  as 
frequently.  This  is  doubtless  due  in  most  cases  to  the  fact  that 
the  genitive  absolute  is  not  felt  to  be  as  closely  connected  with 
the  principal  verb  as  when  the  participle  agrees  with  the  subject. 
In  other  cases  we  can  see  special  reasons  for  the  retention  of  ov. 

The  genitive  absolute  in  this  construction  is  generally  preceded 
by  &>9,  but  one  exception  to  this  rule  being  noted,  i.  e.,  Hdt.,  vn, 
10  8 :  av  S)V  fjLTj  fiovXev  e?  iclvhvvov  firjBiva  toiovtov  airiKeo-Ocu, 
fiTj&efiLrjs  avdytcTjs  iovar)<;,  dXXa  ifiol  ireidev.  Here  the  participle 
is  temporal  or  causal — "When  or  since  there  is  no  necessity ," 
hence  firj  must  be  due  to  the  force  of  the  imperative. 

1  The  examples  from  the  New  Comedy  have  been  cited  for  the  sake  of  com- 
pleteness.   They  have  not  been  counted,  however,  in  making  up  the  totals. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr}  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     1 9 

For  an  example  with  a>9,  cf.  Aristoph.,  Frogs,  128  : 

HPA.  {3ov\et,  fcardvrrj  kcli  ra^eldv  croc  (f>pd(ro) ; 
AIO.    V7]  TOP  A/'  ft)9  ovtos  ye  flT)  ^aScarcKov. 

Here  we  must  supply  <£pa£e  from  the  preceding  line,  /jltj,  it  is 
true,  goes  with  fiaSco-Titcov,  but  it  is  a  good  example  of  the 
influence  of  the  imperative.  For  other  examples,  cf.  Thuc,  vn, 
15,  l(bis);  77,  7;  Xen.,  Cyr.,  I,  6,  11;  Plato,  Phsedo,  77  E: 
009  SeSiorcov  (rj/jiojv) — ireipoy  dvaireiOeiv  ■  puaXkov  Be  fir)  a>9  r)fia>v 
SeStorcov.  Here  the  whole  phrase  fir)  &>9  rjfi&v  BeSiorow  is  con- 
trasted with  the  preceding  o>9  SeBiorcov.  Hence  the  position  of 
the  negative.  For  other  examples  in  Plato,  cf.  Char.,  176  B; 
Eep.,  I,  327  C;  Laws,  XI,  915  E;  (Menander,  492).  This  con- 
struction is  conversational,  the  example  from  the  Laws  being  the 
only  exception.  Hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  it  does 
not  occur  in  the  Orators.  In  the  four  examples  that  follow,  C09 
ov  with  the  participle  is  connected  with  an  imperative.  In  three 
of  the  cases  the  imperative  follows,  and  its  force  is  felt  less  than  if 
it  preceded.  It  must  be  noticed  also  that  009  with  the  participle  is 
virtually  a  form  of  oratio  obliqua,  and  as  such  its  natural  negative 
is  ov,  not  firj. l  This  may  help  to  account  for  the  retention  of  ov 
here.     The  passages  are  as  follows:  Eurip.,  Medea,  1311  : 

a>9  ov/cer  ovtcov  tojv  reKvwv  <f>p6vri%e  Brf. 

Here  also  the  negative  of  fact  may  be  retained,  as  is  commonly 
done  when  speaking  of  the  dead.  Xen.,  Mem.,  11,  6,  32 :  009  ov 
wpoo-olcrovTos  ra<;  %e£/oa9 — 8i$ao-/ce,  where  a  whole  line  intervenes 
between  the  participle  and  the  principal  verb ;  ib.,  Cyr.,  viii,  4, 
27 :  o>9  avapbevovvTOs  ical  ovk  diroOavovfievov  ovrco  irapao-iceva^ov. 
Plato,  Apol.,  30  B  :  rj  dfyiere  7)  fir)  a<j)L6T€,  C09  ifiov  ovk  av 
Troirjo-ovTos  aWa.  In  this  latter  case  the  force  of  the  assertion 
is  evident. 

In  the  third  class  are  included  those  cases  in  which  the  parti- 
ciple appears  as  the  object  of  an  imperative,  generally  of  a  verb 
of  saying  and  thinking.  The  participle  frequently  takes  the  place 
of  an  object  clause,  and   hence,  owing  to  the  peculiarity  of  the 

1  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  Justin  Martyr,  1,  4,  19. 


20     On  the  Use  of  Mt?  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek, 

Greek  idiom,  may  be  in  the  nominative  when  its  subject  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  principal  verb.     When  not  used  as  an  object 
clause,  it  agrees  with  the  object  of  the  verb.     g>9  is  sometimes 
used  with  the  participle,  but  more  frequently  not. 
The  first  example  noted  is  in  Aeschylus,  Sup.,  209 : 

c5  Zed,  kottcov  otKTipe  fir)  a7ro\&)Xora9, 

where  fir)  airoXcokoTa?  seems  to  be  equal  to  irpXv  airoXecraL. 
Another  example  is  found  in  Agam.,  932 : 

yvcofivv  fiev  i<rdt  fir)  BiafyQepovvT  ifii. 

In  Persae,  435,  vvv  too"  XaOt  finBeTrw  fieaovv  kclkov,  it  is  hard  to 
decide  whether  we  have  the  participle  or  the  infinitive,  as  both  have 
the  same  form.  Baumlein,  however,  p.  268,  takes  it  as  the  participle. 
Sophocles  has  five  examples  of  this  construction,  four  of  which 
have  o>9.  The  passages  are  Antig.,  1063,  1064;  O.  C,  1155; 
Phil.,  253,  415.     The  last  example  is  as  follows : 

&>9  fin/cer  ovra  Kelvov  iv  cfrdei  voce. 

Cf.  Hdt.,  in,  65,  where  the  same  construction  occurs,  and  where 
Stein,  groundlessly  it  seems  to  me,  objects  to  fir). 

Euripides  has  but  four  examples  of  the  participle  so  used,  of 
which  the  most  noteworthy  is  Heraclidae,  693 : 

IO.  fir}  tol  fi  epv/ce  Bpav  Trapeaicevacrfievov, 
®E.   Bpav  fiev  av  y   ov%  0I09  re,  /3ovXeo~6ai  6°  t<x&)9. 
IO.   ft>9  fir)  fievovvra  raXXa  aoc  Xeyeiv  irdpa. 

Here  Reiske,  quoted  by  Elmsley,  makes  the  participle  depend  on 
epvice ;  others  supply  Xadt ;  but  Elmsley  and  most  editors  take  the 
participle  as  the  accusative  absolute.  We  still,  however,  have  to 
explain  fir],  and  the  explanation  is  doubtless  found  in  the  impera- 
tive tone  of  the  sentence.  Cf.  Thuc,  vi,  40,  1  :  rcov  roiwvBe 
dyyeXicov  oxj  777909  aladofiivovs  teal  fir)  iiriTpetyovTas  diraXXaynre, 
where  fir]  seems  to  be  due  to  the  same  cause.  Cf.  Classen's  note. 
But  on  the  other  hand  in  Rhesus  145  (which,  however,  is  generally 
regarded  as  not  by  Euripides)  we  find  : 

adXnriyyos  avBr)v  irpoarBoKOiv  tcapaBotcet, 
o>9  ov  fievovvra  fie. 


On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     21 

These  examples  seem  to  show  that  in  the  case  of  the  accusative 
absolute,  as  in  that  of  the  genitive  absolute,  the  same  choice  of 
negatives  is  permitted. 

If  Ion  313  belongs  under  this  head  we  have  to  supply  the  impera- 
tive from  the  preceding  line,  as  in  the  case  of  Aristoph.,  Frogs,  128, 

KP.  rjiieZ?  cr  dp*  clvOls,  <b  %ev  avTOitcripOfiev. 

KIN.    ft>5  fJUT)  el$60'  rfTL?  fl    6T6K6V  If  OTOV  T    €(j)VV. 

"  Yes ;  pity  me  who  know  neither  mother  nor  father." 

The  historians,  orators,  and  Plato  make  but  little  use  of  this  con- 
struction, which  belongs  apparently  to  the  language  of  the  drama. 
The  complete  list  of  occurrences  is  as  follows : 


Aeschylus : 

Sup.,  209. 

Agam.,  932. 

Persae,  435. 

Tragici  Minores : 

Frag,  incert.,  122, 

quoted  by  Dem., 

xviii,  267. 

Xenophon : 
Cyn.  ix,  15. 

Isocrates : 

Comici  Minores : 

Antiphanes,  177. 

(Philemon  the 

younger,  1,  2.) 

v,  133. 

Sophocles : 

0.  C,  1155. 

Antig.,  1063,  1064. 

Phil.,  253,  415. 

Demosthenes : 

xxvii,  59. 

lv,  35. 

Herodotus : 

in,  65. 
viii,  144. 

Euripides : 
Androm.,  726. 

Aeschines : 
1,  161. 

Heraclidae,  693, 
982. 
Ion,  313. 

Thucydides : 
1,  141,  1. 

Plato : 
Gorgias,  488  B. 

Mt;  is  not  invariably  found  in  this  construction.  Indeed,  as 
the  participle  here  is  a  form  of  oratio  obliqua  we  should  rather 
expect  to  find  ov  than  ^77,  and  it  seems  to  point  to  the  strong 
influence  of  the  imperative  that  so  many  of  the  cases  have  /jltj  and 
so  few  ov  (see  page  19).  An  example  with  ov  has  already  been 
cited  from  [Euripides]  Rhesus,  145.    Others  are  Soph.  Phil.,  567: 

ax;  ravr  eiriarco  hp(OfjLev  ov  /niWovr  en. 

Thuc,  I,  36,  1 :  yvdorco — ov — fiovKonevo?  koX  ov  irpovocov.     Here 
three  lines  intervene  between  the  principal  verb  and  the  partici- 
ples, and  hence  ov  is  retained ;  ib.,  1,  122,  2 :  Xarco  ovk  aXko  ri 
3 


22     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Geeek. 

<f>€povo~av  rj  avrfcpv?  hovkeiav.  Demos.,  XXII,  29  :  rj  Sel^ov  ov 
ireiroinKOTa  ravra  aavrov,  rj  Slkwv  vire^e. 

We  see  then  from  these  few  passages  that,  although  ov  is  per- 
mitted with  the  participle  in  this  construction,  the  tendency  is  to 
assimilate  the  negative  to  that  of  the  imperative. 

Our  fourth  class  includes  what  we  have  called  the  indirect 
imperative,  i.  e.,  where  the  participle  forms  part  of  an  infinitive 
clause  after  verbs  of  exhortation  or  command,  e.  g.,  7rapaiva>, 
KeXevG),  &c.     The  first  example  noted  is  in  Euripides,  Frag.,  317  : 

/ecu  vvv  irapcuvS)  iraxn  tol$  vewrepois 
fir)  irpbs  to  yrjpas  arroftoXa*;  rroiov pivots, 
tryp\jj  T€/cvovcr0cu  7ral$a<:. 

Aristoph.,  Clouds,  966,  is  a  good  example  : 

€it  av  rrpofiaOeiv  acrfi  iBLBacr/cev  to>  firjpco  fir)  gwexovras. 

Other  examples  are,  Hdt.,  I,  80,  170 ;  Thuc,  I,  82,  1 ;  90,  3 ;  IV, 
38,  3 ;  98,  8 ;  vm,  14,  1  ;  Xen.  Anab.,  IV,  3,  28 ;  Dem.,  xv,  9 ; 
(LIX,  75)  :  vdfiov  edevro  do-rrjv  elvcu  /ecu  fir)  eirifiefiiyfikvnv  irepa) 
avhpi;  Plato,  Laws,  m,  702  C;  vn,  810  E;  xi,  930  B.  Hence, 
we  see  that  the  construction  belongs  chiefly  to  prose.  In  one  or 
two  cases  ov  seems  to  be  used  contrary  to  the  geueral  rule,  cf. 
Hdt.,  IX,  122 :  avroicrt,  irapalvee  /ceXevcov  irapao-Kevd^eadai  a>? 
ov/ekri  apgovTas  dXX'  dpgojievovs ;  also  Thuc,  I,  28,  1  ;  i/eeXevov 
Koptv0i,ov<;  Toi>9  iv  ^rnhdfivoy  <f>povpov<;  re  /ecu  ol/crfropas  dirdyeiVy 
a>9  ov  fierbv  avrol<;  'FiiriSafivov,  cf.  M orris,  note. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  both  of  these  instances  the  participle 
is  preceded  by  a>?  while  in  all  the  examples  cited  above  have  the  sim- 
ple participle.  Perhaps  this  has  something  to  do  with  the  retention 
of  ov.  In  the  latter  case  also  we  have  the  accusative  absolute  which, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  permits  ov  after  an  imperative. 

A  few  passages  still  remain  to  be  discussed  in  which  firj  is  appar- 
ently due  to  the  force  of  the  imperative,  but  which  cannot  well  be 
classed  under  any  of  the  above  heads.     So  Euripides,  Hipp.,  306  r 

dXX'  ladi  fievToc,  irpb*;  rdS*  avdaBecrrepa 
ylyvov  da\dcrcrr)<;,  el  Oavel,  irpohovaa  aovs 
iral&as  Trarpaxov  fir)  fieOe^ovras  Boficov, 

The  fir]  may  be  due  to  the  preceding  imperative,  and  is  so  ex- 
plained by  Lodge,  Participle  in  Euripides,  p.  20,  but  the  participle 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     23 

seems  rather  to  express  result,  and  Barthold  suggests  that  (xtj  may 
depend  on  some  subordinate  idea,  as  axrre  firj  iieOe^eiv  avTovs.  This 
is  at  least  possible. 

Xen.,  Cyn.,  VI,  5  :  ttjv  8e  (ttoXtjv  6  dp/cvcopb?  igiTco  fyav  iir\ 
Orjpav  fir}  exova-av  fidpos.  The  force  of  the  imperative  is  evident 
here,  and  also  in  Antiphon,  in,  8,  10:  fjbrjre  ovv  ^a?  et?  firj 
irpo<T7)Kovaa^  crvjjLfyopas  ifAf3d\wT€.  Cf.  also  Plato,  Laws,  vin, 
833  E ;  847  B. 

This,  then,  finishes  our  treatment  of  firj  with  the  participle  in 
the  imperative  sentence.  We  see  that  the  force  of  the  principal 
verb  is  very  frequently  sufficient  to  produce  fit]  in  the  subordinate 
clause,  even  when  the  participle  cannot  be  resolved  into  another 
imperative.  A  few  exceptions  have  been  noted,  but  their  number 
is  small  in  comparison  with  those  that  take  fjurj,  and  many  of  them 
admit  of  a  satisfactory  explanation  on  other  grounds. 

Putting  the  results  of  the  preceding  pages  into  a  tabular  form, 
we  get  the  following  table,  showing  the  use  of  yJ\  with  the  parti- 
ciple in  imperative  sentences : 


Authors. 

Ptc. 
Agreeing 

with 
Subject. 

Gen.  Abs. 

Ptc. 

Agreeing 

with 

Object. 

Indirect. 

MlSCEl> 

LANEOUS. 

Homer 

2 

7 
1 
2 
3 
16 

2 

Lyric  Poets, 
not  includ- 
ing Pindar... 

7 

1 

Aeschylus 

Sophocles 

Euripides 

Tragici 

3 
fi 

4 

1 

5 

8 

1 

1 

22 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Comici 

3+C2)1 

l+(2)i 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

4+(4)i 
5 

1 
3 

1 

2 

5 

1 
2 
3 

Thucydides 

Xenophon 

7 

7 

7 

30 

16 

1 

1 

2 

11 
14 

Plato 

4 

40 

Totals 

85-K2)1 

10 

23-h(2) i 

15 

5 

138+(4y 

1  From  the  New  Comedy. 


24     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek, 

2.   In  Optative  Sentences. 

From  the  imperative  we  pass  next  to  /a?/  with  the  participle  in 
wishes,  including  both  the  optative  and  the  past  tenses  of  the  indic- 
ative. The  dividing  line  between  the  optative  and  the  imperative 
is  often  very  faint.  As  the  imperative  may  express  a  command, 
an  exhortation,  and  an  entreaty,  so  the  optative  may  express  vary- 
ing shades  of  feeling  from  that  which  comes  very  close  to  a  com- 
mand to  the  most  humble  prayer  (cf.  p.  9).  The  negative  of  this 
independent  optative  is  fjurj.  Hence  a  participle  that  represents  such 
an  optative  or  forms  an  integral  part  of  a  clause  depending  on  it 
must  also  be  negatived  by  firj.  Examples  of  participles  so  used  are 
not  very  numerous,  but  they  are  found  in  all  periods  of  the  language 
from  Homer  on.  They  fall  most  readily  into  two  classes:  first 
where  the  principal  verb  is  in  the  optative  or  indicative  and  the 
participle  either  agrees  with  the  subject,  or  the  object,  or  some  sub- 
ordinate word,  and  secondly  where  the  participle  forms  part  of 
an  infinitive  clause  after  verbs  of  praying  and  wishing,  evyp^ai, 
@ov\oficu,  etc.     We  take  them  up  in  this  order. 

The  single  passage  in  Homer  in  which  this  construction  is  found 
is  Od.,  IV,  684  : 

fir)  fjuvr)crT€V(ravT€<;  finb^  aXkod*  6fiCKrj(TavTe^ 
vcrrara  /cat  irvfiara  vvv  evddhe  Seiirvrfcreiav. 

"  May  they  (after  their  wooing)  have  no  other  meeting,  but  dine 
here  now  for  the  last  time."    Monro.1 

There  is  another  passage  somewhat  similar  to  this  in  Od.,  xi, 

613: 

fir)  re^vna-diievo^  fine"  a\Xo  tl  re^vijaairo, 

where,  however,  fit]  does  not  go  with  Teyynaaiievos  but  merely,  as 
a  sort  of  free  negative,  serves  to  introduce  the  whole  sentence. 

Hesiod  has  three  examples  of  this  construction,Works  and  Days, 
444,  489,  591 ;  444  is  as  follows : 

roU  &  dfia  TeaaapaKOvraeTr)?  alfobs  €7rotTO, 
09  k  epyov  fxeKerSiV  IBelav  av\aic  iXavvoi, 
fiVKerc  irairTaiv(ov  fjL€$y  ofirfKiKa^. 

1  For  full  discussion  of  the  passage  see  Ameis-Hentze,  Anhang,  and  Aken,  p.  38. 


On  the  Use  of  M.r)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,     25 

The  generic  sentence  that  intervenes  may  also  have  some  influence 
on  the  choice  of  the  negative. 

Theognis  is  the  only  one  of  the  lyric  poets  who  uses  the 
participle  with  fir/  in  this  construction.  In  1154  and  1156  he 
has  two  examples : 

elt)  fioL  7t\ovt€vvtl  Kaictov  airdrepde  fi€pifivi(ov 
£cbeiv  aySXa/3ea)?  firfBev  e^ovrt  kclkov. 

The  other  example  is  similar. 

Neither  iEschylus  nor  Sophocles  has  any  instances  of  the  participle 
so  used.  Euripides,  Alcestis,  536,  shows  still  another  position  of 
the  participle : 

eW  7}VpOfA€V  a   y'A8fJ,7]T€,  fMT)  \V7T0V/JL€V0V. 

Euripides  has  seven  more  examples,  Aristophanes  one,  Lysias  one,  i 

Demosthenes  two,  if  we  include  xxiv,  171,  8i  a  iroWm  ctv  el/corm  I f^^4 
fir/  0€\r)cravT€<;  aKovaac  gov  Qclvcltov  Kara^r)^>io-aLvB>  ovtol  i)  Be 
*AvBporiav  afairjerav,  where  firj  seems  to  be  due  to  the  general 
optative  tone  running  through  the  whole  sentence.  Or,  if  this 
explanation  is  not  satisfactory,  we  may  adopt  that  employed  in 
somewhat  similar  cases  by  Spieker  in  A.  J.  P.,  vi,  323,  and  take 
fjLf)  with  the  following  infinitive.  Plato  has  but  one  example, 
Laws,  vii,  823  E. 

The  complete  list  of  occurrences  is  as  follows : 


Homer : 
Od.  iv,  684. 

Euripides : 

Alcestis,  536. 

Iph.  Tau.,  518, 

535. 

Ion,  632. 

Or.,  1580. 

Frag.,  201. 

360,  27, 

399. 

(Diphilus,  73,  9  = 
Eurip.  Iph.  Tau.,  535). 

Hesiod : 

Op.  et  D.,  444, 
489, 
591. 

Lysias : 
xxiv,  26. 

Demosthenes : 

Aristophanes : 
Plutus,  892. 

xx,  109, 
xxiv,  171. 

Theognis : 
1154, 
1156. 

Comici  Minores: 
Eubulus,  72.5  = 
Incert.,  155. 

Plato : 
Laws,  vn,  823  E. 

26     On  the  Use  of  Mtj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

The  wish,  as  is  well  known,  is  characteristic  of  Euripides,  and 
we  have  a  confirmation  of  it  here.  Notice  the  entire  absence  of 
the  construction  from  the  historians  and,  indeed,  its  small  use  in 
prose  generally ;  but,  then,  prose  writers  have  little  opportunity  of 
using  this  optative,  so  that  their  small  use  of  the  participle  in  this 
construction  is  not  surprising  after  all. 

In  Euripides,  Helena,  730,  ov  seems  to  be  employed  contrary  to 
the  general  rule : 

iya)  fiev  etrjv,  tcel  irtyvx  o/i©9  Xarpis 
iv  t<h?  yevvaloHTiv  ^ptO/jbrj/juivo^ 
8ovXoio~i,  tovvo/jl  ovk  €%(ov  ikevdepov 
rbv  vovv  Be. 

The  participial  clause  is  not  felt  as  an  integral  part  of  the  wish, 
hence  the  negative  of  fact  is  retained. 

Under  the  second  head  are  included  those  passages  in  which  the 
participle  forms  part  of  a  clause  depending  on  verbs  of  praying 
and  wishing.  Again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  indirect  imperative, 
we  have,  strictly  speaking,  a  subdivision  of  the  infinitive  construc- 
tion, but  the  general  optative  tone  of  the  sentences  warrants  us  in 
classifying  them  under  this  head.  The  first  instance  of  the  con- 
struction is  in  Pindar,  Pythia,  IV,  297  :  evxerai — oIkov  Ihelv — 
IL7)T  oav  tlvl  irr\\ia  vropcov,  airaOr]<i  8avTO<;  7T/0O?  aar&v. 

The  next  is  Soph.,  O.  C,  1509  : 

6eXa>  iroXiv  re  Trjvhe  fjurj  yjrevo-as  Oavelv. 

Other  examples  are  Eurip.,  Iph.  Au.,  378  (ftovXoficu) ;  Aristoph., 
Knights,  7H6  (evxofiai) ;  Lys.,  474  (deXco) ;  Thuc,  II,  2,  3, 
ifiovXovTo  T7]v  UXdraiav — en  iv  elpijvrj  re  teal  rov  iroXeixov  firfrrto 
<j>avepov  Kadeo~T<oTo<;,  irpoo-KaTaXaftelv.  The  participial  clause  is 
part  of  the  wish  and  is  equivalent  to  irplv  with  the  infinitive ;  ib., 
Vin,  92,  11  (ovk  tfdeXov) :  Xen.,  Cyr.,  I,  4,  26  (PovXofiai) ;  Hell., 
VI,  2,  39  (PovXoficu) ;  Lysias,  Vin,  2  (fiovXoifivv  av) ;  Isoc,  VI, 
8  (eXolfirjv  av);  Dem.,  XV,  12  (ffovXofiai) ;  Aeschines,  II,  7 
(hiofiai);  Plato,  Laches,  195  A  (eTndvfieiv). 

In  tabular  form  the  use  of  fiij  with  the  participle  in  wishes 
appears  as  follows : 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     27 


Authors. 


Homer 

Hesiod 

Lyric  Poets,  not  including  Pindar 

Pindar 

Aeschylus 

Sophocles 

Euripides , 

Aristophanes 

Comici  Minores 

Herodotus 

Thucydides 

Xenophon 

Orators 

Plato 

Total 


20 


DIRECT. 

Indirect. 

1 

3 

... 

2 

... 

1 

... 

"i 

8 

l 

1 

2 

1 

... 

... 

2 

2 

3 

4 

1 

1 

14 


3.    With  Verbs  of  Swearing. 

Closely  allied  with  the  use  of  fir/  in  expressions  of  a  wish  is  its 
use  with  verbs  of  swearing,  in  which  the  will  of  the  speaker  is 
also  exerted.  In  a  very  few  passages,  four  or  five  in  all,  we  find 
the  participle  forming  part  of  an  infinitive  clause  after  such  verbs. 
This  construction  is  again  but  a  subdivision  of  the  use  of  the 
participle  with  the  infinitive,  which  will  be  treated  later,  but  its 
connection  with  the  indirect  optative  just  discussed  is  sufficient 
excuse  for  placing  it  here. 

Pindar,  Neraea,  vii,  71,  furnishes  the  first  example : 

VTTOfivva> 
fir)  repfia  Trpofia?  cucovff  Sire  yaXKOirapaov  opaac 
Ooav  <y\co(raav. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  a  variant  reading  here,  i.  e.,  aTrofivvm, 
which  Christ  adopts  and  which  would  cause  firj  to  be  taken  with 
opaac.  Bergk  and  Bury,  however,  accept  the  reading  given,  which, 
on  the  whole,  seems  to  be  preferable.  The  other  passages  in  which 
the  construction  occurs  are  Eurip.,  Iph.  Tau.,  739 ;  Aristoph., Wasps, 
1281;  Antiphon,  vi,  16.  In  Xen.,  Cyr.,  vi,  1,  3,  firj  goes  with  both 
participle  and  verb — aircofioo-ev  rj  pJr)v  firj  vtto  rov  'Ta-Taairov 
Treicrdels  ravra  yiyvcba/cew.  In  Antiphon,  I,  28,  there  is  some 
doubt  as  to  the  correct  reading :  to  hiofxoaacrOai  virep  7-779  finrpb? 


28     On  the  Use  of  Mr]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

e&  elBivai  fir)  ireirovqKvlav  ravra.  This  is  the  reading  of  Blass 
following  Cobet.  The  MSS.,  however,  have  Trenrovqicevat,,  which 
Maetzner  retains. 

The  rarity  of  the  participle  in  this  construction  is  doubtless  due 
to  the  fact  that  verbs  of  swearing  are  not  very  frequently  employed 
by  the  classical  writers,  and  hence  opportunities  for  using  it  are 
infrequent, 

4.    In  Final  Sentences. 

Having  thus  far  treated  the  participle  with  fir]  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  imperative,  the  wish,  and  the  oath,  all  of  which  are 
capable  of  being  expressed  as  independent  sentences,  we  turn  now 
to  its  use  in  dependent  sentences.  Here,  as  we  have  already 
seen  (p.  10),  fir]  is  the  negative  when  the  clause  expresses  finality, 
or  condition,  or  depends  on  an  infinitive.  A  participle  that  belongs 
to  such  sentences  must  also  be  negatived  by  fir). 

Let  us  first  take  up  the  final  sentence,  including  besides  the  pure 
final,  object  clauses  after  verbs  of  striving  for  or  effecting,  and  after 
verbs  of  fear. 

The  number  of  participles  so  used  is  not  very  large,  and  they  do 
not  appear  before  the  time  of  iEschylus.  In  the  majority  of  cases 
the  final  particle  is  expressed,  but  in  some  fir]  seems  to  be  due  to 
the  general  idea  of  purpose  running  through  the  whole  sentence. 
The  first  example  noted  is  iEschylus,  Prometheus,  824 : 

07TO)9  8'  av  elBfj  fir)  fidrrjv  /cXvovad  fiov. 

In  Soph.,  Ajax,  472,  the  particle  is  not  expressed  and  fir]  must 
depend  on  the  general  idea  of  purpose : 

Treipd  Tt?  Irjrrjrea 
toiglK  d<j)  r}$  yipovri  Br)\axro)  irarpX 
fir)  toi  <j>v(nv  y   aarirXayxyos  e/c  tcelvov  7670)9. 

Examples  of  object  clauses  are,  Xen.,  Cyr.,  viii,  1,  42:  ifieXirrjae 
Q)<;  fir)  TTTvovre?  firjSe  dirofivrTOfievoi  <f>avepol  elev,  firjSe  fiera- 
arp€(f)6fi€vot  eVt  6eav  firfhevos,  to?  ovBev  6avfid£ovT€<;.  The 
clause  with  a>?  is  not  felt  as  an  integral  part  of  the  sentence, 
and  hence  ov  is  retained.  lb.,  Rep.,  Lac,  vi,  1 ;  Isoc.,  vi,  94 ; 
ib.,  XXI,  13 :  a><rre  fir)  irepl  tovt  elvai  Nt/cta  07ra>9  avtcofyavT&v 
rdWorpia  XrjyjrotTO  a  A,  A,*  07ra>5  fir)  firjSev  d8i/ca>v  kclkov  tc  ireiaoLTO. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     29 

This  is  the  reading  of  Bekker,  Muller  and  Baiter.  Blass  reads 
07tg>5  fj,rj  ovBkv  /ere.  The  MSS.  have  simply  07r&>?  fjbrjBev  aBt/cwv. 
The  sense  seems  to  require  the  participle  to  be  negatived,  and  firjBiv 
seems  to  be  more  natural  than  ovBev ;  and  it  is  easier  to  see  how 
fir/  could  be  dropped  before  firjBev  than  before  ovBev.  Other  ex- 
amples of  the  object  clause  are  :  Dem.,  v,  13  ;  vm,  13 ;  (x,  41) ; 
Plato,  Laws,  VI,  770  D. 

Of  /At]  with  the  participle  forming  part  of  a  clause  depending  on 
a  verb  of  fear  but  one  example  has  been  noted,  i.  e.,  Plato,  Char., 
166  D :  (frofiovfievo?  jjlt)  ttotc  XaSto  ol6/j,6vo<;  fiev  re  elBivcu,  el&GDS  Be 
fiTj.  ov  properly  follows  jay/  after  verbs  of  fear  (cf.  Thuc,  VII,  25,  7 : 
Beivov — fir)  ov  irpoiBoav  tis,  coairep  irepl  epp,a  irepifiakr)  rrjv  vavv, 
where  ov  belongs  only  to  the  participle),  but  (*q  is  sometimes  found,1 
and  this  passage  seems  to  be  an  instance  of  this  construction. 

In  (Theages,  122  C)  the  participle  forms  part  of  a  cautious 
assertion,  the  verb  not  being  expressed.  Cf.  Antiphon,  v,  75. 
The  list  of  passages  in  which  the  participle  forms  part  of  a  final 
clause  is  as  follows  : 


Aeschylus : 
Pro.,  824. 

Xenophon : 

Anab.,  vn,  2,  33. 

Cyr.,  iv,  6,  11. 

vm,  1,  42. 

Rep.  Lac,  vi,  1. 

Cyn.  x,  1. 

Demosthenes : 
v,  13. 
vin,  13. 

Sophocles : 
Ajax,  472. 
0.  R,  1389. 

(x,  41). 
(xvii,  2). 
xix,  38. 
xx,  136. 

0.  C,  1279. 

Isocrates : 

vi,  94. 

xvn,  47. 

xxi,  13. 

xxiv,  28. 
(LXI,  10). 

Herodotus : 
iv,  139. 
ix,  45. 

Plato : 
Alcib.,  i,  122  A. 

Isaeus : 

v,  5. 

vin,  4. 

(Theages,  122  C.) 

Thucydides : 
IV,  67,  4. 

Char.,  166  D. 
Euthyd ,  304  A. 
Laws,  vi,  770  D. 

As  in  the  preceding  classes,  so  in  this,  ov  is  occasionally  found 
where  we  should  expect  firjy  but  it  can  generally  be  explained  on 
the  principle  of  adhaerescence.     So  Soph.,  Electra,  584  : 

elaopa  fjurj  o-terjyfnv  ovtc  ovaav  tlOws. 

1  Cf.  Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,  \  306. 


30     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 
Also  Eurip.,  Phoe.,  1319  : 

07TG>9 

\ovo~r)  irpodrjTaL  T  ovtcer  ovra  iralK  ifiov. 

ov  is  regular  when  speaking  of  the  dead.  Hdt.  i,  99  :  o/cw?  av 
fir)  6p5)VTe<$  oi  Ofir/Xifces,  ovt€<; — olfcir)*;  ov  <j>\avpoTepa<;  ov8e  e? 
avSpayadinv  XetTrofievoc,  Xvireoiaro. 

ov  <f)\avpoTepa<;  can  be  explained  by  adhaerescence,  then  ovSe 
follows  as  a  matter  of  course.  Thuc,  viii,  45,  2  :  ha  clvtwv  fir)  ol 
vavrac — Ta9  vavs  airoXeiTrcoo'LV  ovx  v7ro\nr6vT€<;  rbv  jxiaOov.  The 
MSS.  vary  in  regard  to  ou% — some  omitting  it,  others  retaining  it, 
and  still  others  having  fir]  on  the  margin.  The  majority  of  editors 
retain  ovx — wni°h  may  be  explained  on  the  ground  of  the  causal 
nature  of  the  participle  and  its  distance  from  fir)  and  ha.  Dem. 
xxix,  46  (cited  by  Aken,  p.  229),  seems  to  be  a  real  exception : 
Xv  ef  €lk6to<;  ovBev  7rpoo~f)Kov  r)fiiv  <f>avf}.  The  other  passage  cited 
by  Aken,  i.  e.,  Dem.  Proem.,  v,  is  easily  explained  as  above.  It 
reads :  ha — 8c  avrov,  dWa  fir)  8i  vfias  ovk  iOeXovra?  cucoveiv 
tovto  ireirovOkvai  Bofcf). 

5.    In  Conditional  Clauses  with  el  and  the  finite 
Verb  expressed. 

Next  after  the  final  sentence  we  take  up  the  use  of  fir}  with  the 
participle  in  the  conditional  proposition.  There  are  two  broad 
divisions — First,  where  the  conditional  particle  and  the  finite 
verb  are  expressed,  the  participle  serving  to  introduce  some  parallel 
or  subordinate  idea,  and  secondly,  where  the  participle  itself  forms 
the  protasis  of  a  conditional  proposition.  The  latter  is  much  the 
larger  class  and  constitutes  the  main  development  of  fir)  with  the 
participle.  But  at  present  we  are  only  treating  those  cases  of  the 
participle  in  which  the  principal  verb  is  expressed,  so  that  we  must 
now  confine  ourselves  to  the  former  class. 

About  two  hundred  and  seventy-nine  instances  of  this  con- 
struction have  been  noted.  The  first  example  is  in  the  Odyessy, 
but  it  does  not  occur  again  until  Sophocles,  after  whom,  however, 
it  is  found  very  frequently  in  all  departments  of  the  language. 
As  the  conditional  sentence  belongs  largely  to  argumentative  dis- 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     31 

course,  so  our  construction  abounds  in  Xenophon's  Memorabilia, 
the  orators,  and  some  of  the  dialogues  of  Plato. 

The  participle  appears  in  a  variety  of  forms,  sometimes  in  the 
nominative  agreeing  with  the  subject  of  the  principal  verb,  some- 
times as  genitive  absolute,  sometimes  as  object  of  the  verb.  Aken, 
true  to  his  theory  that  the  principal  verb  does  not  influence  the 
participle,  is  often  put  to  great  straits  to  explain  the  negative.  So 
in  respect  to  Xen.,  Mem.,  in,  5,  23,  idv  tl  ato-dy  aavrbv  fir)  elBora, 
he  says  :  "  nicht  wegen  idv,  sondern  weil  der  ace.  c.  ptc.  einem  ace. 
c.  inf.  gleich  steht ;  ist  es  moglich  gewahlt  aber  weil  der  sinn  ist 
idv  ti  fir)  elBrj?  ical  alo-6r),"  and  in  respect  to  Dem.  xxxi,  5,  he 
says  :  H  el  <f>aveir)  fir)  Xeyayv  =  el  fir)  \eyoi." 

As  this  class  presents  but  few  difficulties,  after  citing  some 
examples  by  way  of  illustration,  we  shall  simply  give  the  com- 
plete list  of  occurrences  in  order  to  show  its  range. 

The  first  example  noted  is  in  Odyssey,  I,  289,  which  is 
repeated  in  n,  220 : 

el  Be  tee  TeOvrjwTo?  aicover}?,  firjB?  en  iovTO?. 

The  next  example  is  Soph.,  Ajax,  1317  : 

aval;  ^OBvaaev,  icaipbv  t&B*  iXrjXvdcbs, 
el  firj  ^vvatycov,  dWa  avWvacov  irdpei. 

The  participles  here  express  purpose,  and  fir)  might  possibly  be 
due  to  this  cause,  but  the  other  explanation  is  simpler  and  better. 
Notice  again  Trach.,  411 : 

Ar.  irolav  d%iol<;  Bovvai  Bl/crjv, 

r)v  evpeOrjs  e?  rrjvSe  fir)  Sl/caio?  ojv  ; 
AI.  7tw?  fir)  BiKaios  ; 

Here  fir)  Blicaios  are  to  be  taken  together,  as  the  answer  shows, 
but  the  example  well  illustrates  the  force  of  the  preceding  condi- 
tion. Notice  the  following  passages  also,  in  which  fir)  seems  to 
depend  on  the  condition,  although  such  dependence  in  all  the  cases 
is  not  really  clear.     Eurip.,  Androm.,  845  : 

a\V  el  (T  d<f>€Lr)v  fir)  (j>povov(rav,  ft)?  Odvoi? ; 


32     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek, 

Troades,  874 : 

KTdvelv  ifjioi  viv  eSocrav,  elre  fir)  icravcov 
deXoifi  ayecrOai  irdXiv  e?  'Apyeicov  %66va. 

Xen.,  Hell.,  i,  7,  19 :  crvfiftovXevco  B'  vfiiv,  ev  oh  ovk  ecrriv  itja- 
TrarrjOrjvai  itfia?,  tcaX  rov<;  aSttcovvTa?  et'SoVe?  KoXdcrecrOe  f)  av 
fiovXrjcrde  hlicr) — el  fir)  rrXeov  dXXa  kclv  filav  rjfiepav  Sovres  avroi? 
— diroXoyr]cracrdaiy  fir)  aXXoi?  iricrrevovres  r)  vfiiv  avrois. 

In  Hdt.,  vii,  10  f,  the  participle  seems  to  be  used  instead  of 
the  finite  verb :  ev  8e  rco  eiria^elv  evecrri  ay  add,  el  fir)  irapavriKa 
Bo/ceovra  elvai,  dXX'  dva  xpovov  egevpoi  ri<;  av.     Cf.  Stein's  note. 

In  pseudo-Lysias,  XX,  20,  the  position  of  the  negative  deserves 
notice :  eX  ri$  rcov  evOdhe  fir)  to,  apicrra  Xeycov  irelQei  vfias.  fir] 
may  be  taken  with  Xeycov  or  with  to,  apicrra  =  ra  fir)  apicrra, 
Cf.  §§  5  and  10,  where  the  same  construction  occurs  and  where  fir] 
undoubtedly  depends  on  the  principal  verb.  But  see  Dem.  (xxvi, 
21) :  c!>9  rrpdrrovra  ical  Xeyovra  fir)  ra  apicrra  to5  8r]fico — irdXiv 
i/coXdcrare,  where  there  seems  to  be  no  other  explanation  than  ra 
fir)  apicrra.  The  whole  phrase  is  a  legal  formula,  and  occurs  in 
the  speech  of  Hypereides,  Pro  Euxenippo,  several  times,  and  in 
every  instance  fir]  depends  on  the  general  idea  of  the  sentence. 
Cf.  Col.  XVIII :  6  Be  pr]rcop  cbv  (alriav  e%6^)  Xeyeiv  fir)  ra  apicrra 
rco  Srffico  ;  Col.  XX  :  ire  pi  rod  Xeyeiv  fir)  ra  apicrra  to5  8r]ficp ; 
Col.  XXXIX  :  elcrayyeXlav  eypayfra — pr]ropa  ovra  Xeyeiv  fir)  ra 
apicrra  rco  Brjficp ;  but  in  Col.  XL  we  have  raft  elirev  ov  ra  apicrra 
to5  8r)fiG).  In  view  of  these  examples,  therefore,  it  seems  better 
in  the  passage  from  Lysias  to  take  fir]  with  Xeycov  as  conditional, 
rather  than  with  ra  apicrra  as  generic. 

The  complete  list  of  the  passages  in  which  fir]  with  the  parti- 
ciple forming  part  of  a  conditional  proposition  occurs  is  as  follows : 


Homer : 

Euripides : 

Od.,  i,  289. 

Androm.,  845 

Ion,  1301. 

Med.,  242. 

Sophocles : 

Or.,  1174, 

Ajax,  1317. 

1198. 

0.  C,  976. 

Tro.,  874. 

Trach.,  411. 

Frag.,  313. 

Aristophanes : 

Clouds,  415. 

Wasps,  1119. 

Lys.,  1112. 

Plutus,  910. 


OF 


On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     33 


Comici  Minores : 

Antiphon : 

n,l. 

Eupolis,  357,  4. 

1,10. 

vn,  2. 

Anaxandrides,  52,  7. 

n,  8,  7. 

ix,  7. 

/  Men.,  325,  15.  \ 
VEuphro,  10,  14./ 

in.  B,  5. 

11  )  *^>  vj 

7,  9,  10, 

5,4. 
iv,  5,  3. 
v,  32. 

Isaeus : 

Herodotus : 

in,  63, 
64. 

ii,  13. 

vi,  19. 

vi,  52. 

in,  69. 
iv,  157. 

vn,  19. 

VIII,  11, 

vn,  10  c, 

Andocides : 

31. 

50, 

n,  1, 

4, 

ix,  27. 

139. 

x,  23. 

vin,  94. 

xi,  19  (bis). 

ix,  51. 

38. 

Lysias : 
i,38. 

Thucydides : 

Demosthenes : 

in,  14,  1. 
46,2. 

iv,  18,  5, 
73,3, 
85,  2. 

vi,  23, 1, 
38,4, 
80,2. 

vn,  70,  8, 
78,1. 

in,  26. 
ix,  10. 
xm,  75. 
xiv,  13, 
22. 
xix,  37. 
(xx,  20). 
xxv,  4. 
xxvii,  8. 
xxxi,  28. 

ii,  23  (bis), 
iv,  38. 
(vn,  45.) 
vni,  18. 
ix,  14. 
(xi,  19.) 
xvn,  65,  220. 
xviii,  201. 
xix,  8,  214, 
233,  239, 

267. 

Xenophon : 

xx,  24,  43, 

Anab.,  iv,  1,  14. 

Isocrates : 

46,  113, 

vn,  6,  27. 

ft  17,) 
V     24./ 

137,  139. 

Cyr.,  i,  6,  22. 

xxi,  51,  100, 

v,  4,  48, 

in,ll. 

128,  134. 

5,13. 

iv,  14. 

186,  206. 

vn,  1,  42. 

v,24, 

xxti,  18,  36, 

viii,  1,  32. 

29, 

62. 

Hell.,  i,  7, 19. 

45, 

xxin,  42,  57, 

Mem.,  i,  2,  29, 

81, 

68,  77, 

7,2, 

105. 

96,  192, 

3. 

viii,  17. 

218. 

ii,  6,  4, 

xi,  7, 

xxiv,  35,  47, 

38. 

50. 

95. 

hi,  1,  2, 

xn,  23, 

xxv,  38,  99. 

9, 

24, 

xxvn,  69. 

5,23. 

269. 

xxx,  23. 

iv,  1,  5, 

xiv,  61. 

xxxi,  5. 

(five  times) 

xv,  42, 

xxxvi,  2, 

2,17, 

90, 

32. 

3,12, 

129. 

xx  xviii,  2. 

6,13. 

xvi,  48, 

(xl,  61.) 

Oec,  ii,  15  (bis). 

50. 

(xiivn,  1.) 
(xlviii,  2.) 

m,  2, 

XVII,  1. 

11. 

xviii,  65. 

(l,  67.) 

De  Vec,  v,  9, 

xix,  32. 

(LII,  2.) 

13. 

Epis.,  i,  9. 

liv,  43. 

ry 


jp^** 


tat 


34     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 


Demosthenes : 

Theaet,  152  D, 

Ion,  542  A. 

l*V,  33. 

162  A, 

Menex,  247  A. 

LVII.  3, 

165  A,  - 

Cleitophon,  408  E. 

44. 

181  B. 

Rep,  ii,  368  D, 

(lviii,  52.) 
Proem.,  vi,  1. 

Politicus,  296  B, 

370  E. 

A 

in,  393  D. 

XXI   1. 

300  A. 

iv,  429  E. 

XXIII. 

Par,  136  C, 

v,  461  B, 

164  D, 

478  D. 

165  E. 

vi,  492  A. 

Aeschines : 

Philebus,  56  E. 

493  B, 

Sym,  178  D. 

499  E. 

i,  85  (bis.) 

Phaedrus,  259  A. 

ix,  579  C. 

131. 

269  B. 

Laws,  i,  638  C, 

ii,  5,  88, 

(Alcib,  ii,  142  D.) 

ii,  653  B, 

163. 

/Hipp,  226  E,\ 
V             231  B./      . 
Char,  175  E. 

658  A, 

660  a 

663  D. 

Hypereides : 

Laches,  200  E. 

iv,  705  E. 

Pro  Eux. 

Euthyd,  287  A. 

vi,  762  A, 

Col.  xxxiii,  =  \  21. 

Gorgias,  460  A, 

C. 

461  B, 
466  E, 

vin,  841  E, 

844  C, 

Deinarchus : 

482  C, 
486  B, 

■p 

845  A*.  C. 

i,  112. 

488  A, 

ix,  862  A, 

514  D, 

516  A, 

872  C, 

874  C. 

Plato: 

522  D. 

xi,  921  A, 

Euthyphro,  15  B. 

Meno,  71  D, 

923  D, 

Apol.,  41  E. 

85  E, 

924  B, 

Phaedo,  62  C, 

97  B  (bis). 

936  D. 

80  E. 

Hip.  Maior,  292  D. 

xii,  943  A, 

Crat,  439  E. 

"     Min.,  372  A. 

D. 

We  see  then  from  this  list  that  the  frequency  with  which  this 
construction  is  used  depends  largely  on  the  nature  of  the  discourse. 
The  dramatists  and  the  historians  use  it  comparatively  rarely, 
while  it  abounds  in  the  orators  and  Plato.  But  these  latter 
writers,  from  the  nature  of  their  writings,  have  many  more  oppor- 
tunities to  use  the  hypothetical  proposition,  and  consequently  the 
participle  is  more  frequently  found.  In  the  same  author  likewise 
differences  are  noted.  For  instance,  the  Protagoras  of  Plato  does 
not  have  any  examples  of  this  use  of  the  participle,  while  the 
Gorgias  has  nine. 

Here,  too,  as  in  the  constructions  previously  treated,  ov  is 
occasionally  found,  but  the  instances  are  very  rare  in  comparison 
to  those  in  which  fir}  is  used.  The  retention  of  ov  is  frequently 
due  to  adhaerescence.     E.  g.,  Eurip.,  Iph.  Au.,  995  : 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     35 

el  B*  ov  irapovans  ravra  rev^ofiai  aedev, 
fievero)  tear  olkovs. 

Cf.  also  Dem.,  xxiv,  48 ;  xxix,  38. 

In  other  cases  the  negative  of  fact  is  retained  or  the  sentence  is 
really  causal  in  its  nature.    Cf.  Aristoph.,  Wasps,  466  : 

el  0~V  J€ 
T&v  vo/jlcdv  rj/JLas  anrelpyeis 
ovre  rev  eycov  Trpofyaaiv 
ovre  Xoyov  evrpaireXov. 

Cf.  also  Thuc,  i,  124,  1 ;  in,  66,  2 ;  Isoc.,  xn,  120 ;  Plato,  Sym., 
185  B  (bracketed  by  Hug). 

Sometimes  ov  and  /jltj  are  used  in  consecutive  clauses,  without 
any  apparent  difference  in  feeling.  Cf.  Dem.,  xxn,  36  :  ro3  yap 
eariv  ovet,8o$,  el  o-lcottoovto^  avrov  teal  fiwSev  ypdcfrovTO?,  Ictcd?  8' 
ov8e  ra  7roXV  els  to  fiovXevrrfpiov  elcnovros,  /jltj  Xdfioi  rj  ftovXrj 
rov  o-re<bavov. 

W9  with  the  participle,  especially  in  the  genitive  absolute,  is 
sometimes  found  with  ov,  although  forming  part  of  a  conditional 
sentence.  The  retention  of  ov  may  be  due  to  the  oratio  obliqua 
force  of  this  construction  (see  p.  19).  Examples  are  Dem., 
XVIII,  207  :  el  yap,  o>9  ov  ra  fieXriaT  e/xov  iroXiTevaafievov,  tovBI 
KaTa-tyr)(j>LeZo~de.     Lysias,  xiv,  31 ;  Plato,  Sym.,  183  D. 

6.    In  the  Generic  Relative  Sentence. 

A  relative  sentence  frequently  implies  a  condition  or  a  generic 
idea.  The  negative  of  this  clause  is  y*)  according  to  the  principle 
already  laid  down  (pp.  9  f.).  A  participle  that  forms  an  inti- 
mate part  of  such  a  clause  is  also  negatived  by  fiy.  It  is  to  this 
class  that  we  now  turn  our  attention  under  the  general  head  of  firj 
with  the  participle  in  the  generic  relative  sentence.  There  are 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  participles  so  used.  The 
construction  does  not  occur  before  Theognis.  For  neither  Homer, 
nor  Hesiod,  nor  Pindar  uses  it,  although  both  Homer  and  Pindar 
have  examples  of  the  generic  relative  with  pjf,  Cf.  Homer,  II., 
II,  302  ;  Pindar,  Pyth.,  I,  13  ;  ix,  94. 


36     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

The  first  example  in  which  a  participle  appears  is  Theognis,  734 : 

Scttis  aOeipr)?  Teyya^oiTO  Oecov  fjbrjBev  OTn^ofievo?. 
-5£schylus  has  but  a  single  example,  Septem,  3  : 


oort?  <f>v\d<r<T€i 

.     fi\e<f>apa  fir)  icoifiwv  vttvg). 

Sophocles  is  also  sparing  in  its  use,  having  but  four  instances. 
Euripides,  however,  uses  it  more  freely,  if  we  include  phrases  like 
ore  or  a  fir)  XP€™V>  which  occur  in  Bacchae,  515,  912 ;  Hec,  282  ; 
Electra,  223;  Frag.,  193,  417. 

Aristophanes  has  but  two  examples.  Herodotus  but  one.  Thu- 
cydides  and  Xenophon,  in  his  historical  writings,  use  it  more  freely. 
It  occurs  most  frequently  in  the  philosophical  works  of  Xenophon, 
in  the  later  orators,  and  Plato. 

The  following  table  shows  the  range  and  frequency  of  the  con- 
struction. 


Theognis : 
734, 
745. 

Tragici  Min.: 
Critias,  4. 

ii,  44,  2. 

vn,  74,  3. 

92,6. 

Aristophanes  : 
Clouds,  619. 
Frogs,  358. 

Aeschylus : 
Septem,  3. 

Xenophon : 

Anab.,  iv,  2,  17. 

Cyr.,  in,  3,  31. 

iv,  5,  21. 

Mem.,  i,  2,  44. 

(thrice) 

2,45. 

(thrice) 

7,5. 

TT    3    7 

Sophocles : 
Ajax,  1094. 
O.  R,  875. 
O.  C,  1186. 
Trach.,  384. 

Comici  Min.: 

Antiphanes,  244. 

Alexis,  269,  2. 

|—        Men.,  628,        ""1 

640. 

Philemon,  4,  7, 

94,4. 

Demoxenus,  2,  13. 

Euripides  : 
Bacchae,  515, 
912 

11,  o,  /. 

Hell.,  ii,  3,  12. 

33. 

v,  3,  11. 

Hec,  282. 
Elec,  223. 
Tro.,  1166. 
Frag.,  193, 
417, 

Herodotus : 
vn,  132. 
vni,  27. 

Oec,  i,  16. 

Hiero,  vn,  9. 

(Rep.  Ath.,  ii,  20) 

De  Vect.,  n,  2. 

Cyn.,  ii,  21. 

501, 

784, 

910, 

1049. 

Thucydides : 
I,  40,  2. 
71,1. 

Andocides : 
(rv„  37.) 

On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,    37 


Lysias : 
in,  41. 
xxv,  22. 
xxvr,  10. 

xxvin,  21. 
xxxi,  12. 
xlv,  68. 
/l,  36A 

v  44.; 

LVIII,  51. 

(lix,  103.) 
Proem.,  i,  3. 

Euthyd.,  277  E, 
306  A. 
Gorgias,  485  D. 
Meno,  86  B, 
99  C, 
D. 
Hip.  Mai.,  290  C. 
302  C. 
Rep.,  hi,  379  D, 
vn,  533  C, 
vni,  549  D, 
(bis) 
ix,  571  E, 
572  A, 
x,  615  E. 
Tim.,  84  B. 
Laws,  hi,  687  E. 
v,  733  B, 
735  E. 

Isocrates : 

v,  26. 

29. 

vi,  61. 
vni,  22. 
139. 
ix,  6. 
xni,  7. 
xv,  143. 
xvin,  43. 
xix,  33. 

Aeschines : 
hi,  226. 

Plato : 
Phsedo,  65C.E, 

82  D. 
Theaet.,  155  B, 
175  E. 
Soph.,  219  B, 
230  B, 
238  B, 
C. 
Polit.,  311  C. 
Philebus,  14  B, 
Phsedrus,  232  D. 
(Alcib.,  ii,  147  C.) 
(Hipp.,  231  A.) 
Laches,  191  A, 
193  C. 
Lysis,  213  C. 

Isseus : 
in,  35, 
iv,  19. 
xi,  29. 

vi,  753  C. 

vni,  829  C, 

847  C. 

ix,  855  E, 
873  C, 
876  B, 

880  E, 

881  B. 
x,  885  A, 

908  B. 
xi,  913  C, 

924  C, 

925  C, 

926  A. 

Demosthenes : 

ix,  65. 

xix,  161. 

xx,  113. 

xxi,  109. 

xxn,  71. 

Some  few  passages  of  special  interest  or  importance  deserve  a 
few  words  of  comment.  So  the  construction  in  Thuc,  vii,  92,  6  : 
ocroL?  fir)  ftovkofievoi?  ravra  r)v.  The  only  other  instance  of  this 
use  of  the  participle  with  fir]  is  found  in  Xen.,  Cyr.,  iv,  5,  21 : 
ore*  vfjLayv  fir]  axdofiivqy  etrj.  In  Thuc,  n,  3,  .2,  ov  is  used  because 
a  definite  body  is  referred  to  :  rq>  TrXrjdet  ov  fiovXofievq)  r)v. 

Pseudo-Andocides,  rv,  37,  has  been  included  in  the  above  list, 
although  Aken  thinks  the  fir]  inexplicable.  The  passage  reads : 
ovkovv  tou9  toiovtovs  Slkcuov  iicftaWeLV,  ov<;  woWd/cis  i\ey- 
%ovre<;  €vpiar/c€T€  firjSev  d&i/covvras,  d\\d  tovs  fir)  Oekovras  /ere. 
tovs  fir)  Oekovra?  is  plainly  generic,  and  I  can  see  no  objection  to 
explaining  o{/? — firjSev  aBc/covvras  in  the  same  way. 

Isaeus,  XI,  29,  deserves  notice :  ovtc  dv  irore  ravr  iiroirfaav  ovS' 
lire^elpriaav,  elSore?  ore,  or  iv  rf}  d^yio-rsia  fir)  ovre<;  el^ov  ri  tcov 
4 


38     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

firj  irpoarjtcovreov,  tovt  av  virb  rcov  eyyvrara  yevovs  paBico<;  a<j>y- 
peOrjaav.  There  seems  to  be  no  other  explanation  of  /nrj  with  6We? 
than  to  make  the  sentence  generic.  It  is  true  the  MSS.  have  oirore, 
instead  of  ore,  ore,  but  this  does  not  alter  the  construction,  ore  or 
oirore  with  the  indicative  in  a  generic  sentence  is  not  common,  but 
it  is  found,  as  the  following  examples  show  :  Dem.,  xx,  24  :  ore 
Be  rovro  fir)  iroiovaiv — ib.,  XXII,  71 :  oirore — /jltj  irpoaypayjrdfjuevof; 
— fyaivei,  and  these  are  sufficient  to  warrant  the  use  of  fir/  with 
the  participle  above.1 

ov  is  also  occasionally  found  in  these  conditional  relative  sentences 
where  we  should  expect  /iq  to  be  used.    Cf.  iEschylus,  Agam.,  13: 

evr   av  Be  vvicriifKayKrov  evBpoabv  r'  eyw 
evvrjv  oveipocs  ov/c  einaKoirov/jLevrjv. 

Adhaerescence  would  suffice  to  explain  ov  here.  Eurip.  Sup.,  425 : 

orav  irovr\po<$  d^icofi  avrjp  e^rj 

yXcoaarj  Karaayoiv  BrjfMOv,  ovBev  gov  rb  irpiv. 

The  participial  clause  is  here  separated  from  the  principal  sentence. 

Plato,  Theaet.,  195  C:  orav  avco  Kara)  rovs  \6yov$  eX/cy  re? 
virb  vG)6eias  ov  Bvvdfievo?  ireiaOr\vai.    Adhaerescence  again. 

Generally  we  have  oaoi,  oaa  fxr/,  but  occasionally  ov  is  found  as  in 
Thuc,  I,  7 :  oo-oi  ovres  ov  daXdaaiot  Karoo  ookovv.  Plato,  Phaedo, 
104  B ;  Aristoph.,  Plutus,  754-5. 

o>5  again  shows  its  tendency  to  take  ov  in  spite  of  the  force  of 
the  principal  sentence  in  Isoc,  vi,  61  :  orav  op&fiev  r)fia<;  /lev 
avrovs  ovrcos  evr\voyora<;  ras  av/jL(j)opd<;,  o>9  ovBeves  aXXoi  ircoirore 
— rov<;  Be  firjBe  t<z<?  evrv^ta^  <j>epecv  Bwafxevovs. 

7.     Elliptical  Expressions — el  fir),  oaov,  oaa  /jltj  with  the  Participle. 

Closely  connected  with  the  last  two  classes  are  certain  elliptical 
expressions  with  el  firj  and  oaov  or  oaa  fir/,  in  which  the  participle 

1  Cf.  Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,  \  535  ;  Kriiger,  §  67,  4,  2.  Other  examples 
are  Plato,  Phaedo,  84  E:  8V«  76  /iTj8'  upas  Zvvafiai  ireleeiv — Rep.,  1,  354  C:  6t6tc 
ykp  rb  Slicaiov  p))  o!5a,  and  perhaps  Lysias,  xxvi,  10,  although  here  the  sentence 
seems  to  be  more  causal  than  generic,  which  would  not  take  yA\ :  vvv  56,  ire  yb\ 
u6vov  lirirtvKws  nrjSk  &tfiou\tvKu>s — (paiutTat. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     39 

is  occasionally  used.  At  first  the  principal  verb  was  doubtless 
supplied  from  the  context,  and  we  had  an  ordinary  conditional  or 
generic  relative  sentence.  But  as  time  went  on  the  ellipsis  became 
less  apparent,  and  el  fir/  and  oaov  fir/  became  mere  phrases  with 
the  meaning  "except,"  and  were  used  to  limit  a  previous  asser- 
tion. And  so  we  find  them  used,  not  only  with  the  participle, 
but  also  with  nouns  and  adjectives.  This  is  the  explanation 
usually  adopted  for  this  construction.  For  a  different  one  see 
Madvig,  Syntax,  p.  206,  who  takes  fjutj  with  the  participle  as  a 
negative  condition,  the  el  being  added  to  strengthen  the  con- 
ditional force.  The  passages  in  which  the  participle  is  employed 
are  as  follows,  Aeschylus,  Agam.,  1139 : 

7tol  Br)  fie  Sevpo  tt]v  raXatvav  rjyayes  ; 
ovBev  7tot  el  /jltj  %vv6avov/jLevr)v. 

We  could  supply  here  e/jue  Bevpo  r/yayes,  but  it  is  not  necessary. 
Eurip.,  Medea,  369 : 

So/cet?  yap  av  fie  rovBe  dwirevaai  Trore, 
el  fir/  n  /cepSalvovaav  rj  Texvcofievrjv ; 

Also  (Rhesus,  118);  Aristoph.,  Clouds,  229;  Fragment,  217; 
Thuc,  v,  47,  5;  VII,  38,  1  ;  Xen.,  Cyr.,  II,  2,  11;  Dem.,  xxiv, 
46 ;  Plato,  Crito,  52  B,  in  which  both  on  firj  and  el  /jurj  are  found, 
although  the  clause  with  on  firj  is  bracketed  by  Wohlrab. 

Hdt.,  in,  72,  shows  the  original  construction  in  which  the  verb 
had  to  be  supplied  :  c^uXa/ca?  yap  8rj  BieaTecbaa?  olBd?  kov  real 
avros,  el  /jlt)  ISoov,  a\V  cucovaa?. 

With  oaov  or  ova  p,r)  the  sense  is  less  clearly  "  except,"  and  the 

participle  seems  to  have  more  of  a  conditional  force.     Cf.  Soph., 

O.K.,  348: 

XaOi  yap  Sofcwv  ifAol 

koX  %v/jL<f>VTevo~ai  rovpyov  elpydadac  6\  oaov 

fir)  %ep<rl  Kalvcov. 

i.  e.,  "as  far  as  you  were  able  to  do  it  without  killing  him  with 
your  own  hands."     Cf.  Trach.,  1214  : 

oaov  y  av  avrbs  /jlt)  iron^avoav  ^epotv. 


40     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

Lycurgus,  §  94 :  eh  tovtov?  firj  ore  dfiaprelv  a\X.'  ore  fir)  evepye- 
tovvto,?  rbv  avrcov  /3lov  KaravakSso-ai  fiiyiarov  daeftrjfid  ecrnv. 
For  oaa  fir},  cf.  Thuc,  I,  111,  1  :  rr}?  fiev  7775  i/epdrovv  oaa  fir) 
7rpoiovT€<;  tto\v  e'/c  TOiv  ottXcov.     lb.,  IV,  16,  1. 

In  the  sense  of  "  almost,"  "  all  but,"  oaov  ov  is  used,  and  the 
union  is  so  close  that  ov  is  retained  even  in  a  sentence  that  demands 
nr).  Cf.  Thuc,  I,  36,  1  :  orav  e<?  rbv  fieXkovra  koX  oarov  ov  nra — 
povra  nroXefiov — ivBoid^r). 

8.    With  the  Infinitive. 

The  infinitive  regularly  takes  fir)  except  after  verbs  of  saying 
and  thinking,  and  even  after  these  when  they  have  an  asseverative 
force,  as  we  shall  see  below.  A  participle  depending  on  such  an 
infinitive  is  also  generally  negatived  by  fir).  It  is  to  this  use  of 
jjlt)  with  the  participle  that  we  now  direct  our  attention.  Three 
subordinate  classes  that  belong  under  this  head  have  already  been 
treated,  i.  e.,  the  indirect  imperative  (p.  22)  after  such  verbs  as 
wapaivelv,  iceKeveiv,  the  indirect  optative  after  ev^ec-dai,  ftovXe- 
adai  (p.  26),  and  finally  after  verbs  of  swearing  (p.  27).  We  have 
now  to  consider  the  use  of  the  participle  in  connection  with  a 
more  general  use  of  the  infinitive.  The  most  common  form  in 
which  it  appears  is  with  expressions  denoting  necessity,  Bet,  yjpr), 
dvdytcr),  dvayicaiov  eari,  <j>r)fil  Belv  (another  indirect  form  of  the 
imperative),  and  the  verbals  in  -reov,  -reo<;.  Out  of  a  total  of 
two  hundred  and  seventeen  examples  of  firj  with  the  participle  in 
infinitive  clauses,  seventy-four  belong  to  this  class.  The  articular 
infinitive,  the  infinitive  after  ware,  the  infinitive  as  a  substantival 
amplification  of  a  pronominal  idea,  e.  g.,  tovto  ian  cro(f)6v,  o~a>£et>v  to 
o-(bfia  fir/  i/c  rv\r)<;  aypfito-fievov,  and  various  minor  categories  make 
up  the  rest. 

Homer  and  the  early  lyric  poets  do  not  make  any  use  of  this 
construction.  The  first  example  is  found  in  Theognis,  280  :  et/co? 
rbv  kclkov  av&pa  tfa/cw?  ra  hlicaia  vofii^eiv,  finhefiiav  KaroTnO* 
d^ofievov  vefieaiv,  where  the  participle  is  causal,  but  takes  fir)  owing 
to  the  force  of  the  infinitive. 

Pindar  has  two  possible  instances,  although  they  are  both 
explained  otherwise  by  some  scholars.     The  first  is  Nemea,  v, 


On  the  Use  of  Mij  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     41 

14 :  alBeofiai  fieya  elirelv  ev  Bi/ca  re  fir]  KeKivBvvevfievov.  Here 
Rumpel,  Lex.  Pind.,  ascribes  fir]  to  the  force  of  the  infinitive,  and 
this  seems  to  be  a  possible  explanation.  Bury,  however,  The 
Nemean  Odes  of  Pindar,  takes  fir]  with  iv  BUa  and  makes  it  sub- 
jective— "  peradventure  not  justly  risked."  The  position  of  the 
negative  is  against  this  explanation,  although  Boeckh  thinks  it 
possible. 

The  other  passage  is  Nemea,  VIU,  4:  dyairara  Be  /caipov 
fir)  irXavaOevra  epyov  e/caarov  rcav  apewvcov  epcorcov  iiriKparelv 
BvvacrOcu.  Here  Rumpel  explains  fir]  as  being  due  to  the  con- 
ditional force  of  the  participle.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  the 
conditional  force  is  very  faint  and  that  the  participle  is  simply 
descriptive  =  "  without  wandering."  In  this  event  fir]  depends  on 
the  infinitive. 

It  may  be  well  to  notice  here  that  these  two  classes,  conditional 
and  infinitive,  continually  cross  each  other,  and  it  is  often  hard  to 
tell  which  exerts  the  greater  influence.  Take  for  instance  an  ex- 
ample like  Eurip.,  Hecuba,  743  : 

ovroi  7re(f)v/ca  fidvri?,  axrre  fir)  /cXvav 
itJMTTopfjcrai  awv  6Bbv  ftovXevfidrcov. 

Here,  by  comparison  with  Dem.,  in,  21,  and  Isaeus,  xn,  3,  where 
the  same  construction  occurs,  I  prefer  to  class  the  participle  as  con- 
ditional, but  in  all  of  them  fir]  might  depend  on  the  force  of  the 
infinitive.  One  is  obliged  to  follow  his  own  feeling  in  such  cases, 
and  no  two  persons  would  be  likely  to  make  exactly  the  same 
classification. 

These  passages,  as  well  as  those  from  Pindar,  show  the  diffi- 
culties we  encounter  under  this  head.  Other  doubtful  passages 
are  :  Eurip.,  Medea,  813  : 

<to\  Be  (Tvyyvcofir)  Xeyetv 
rdB"1  early  fir)  rrda^ovaav  a>9  eycb  /ca/cw9. 

There  seems  to  be  no  other  explanation  of  fir]  here  than  to  make  it 
depend  on  the  infinitive.1 

Thuc,  II,  83,  5  :  erdgavro  kvkXov  r&v  ve&v  o>?  fieyicrrov  olol 
T*   r)<rav  (sc.    rroirfaaC)   fir)   BiB6vre<$    BieiarXovv — ib.,   Ill,    16,    1  : 

1  Cf.  Jebb  to  Soph.  Ajax,  1007.    Aken,  p.  228,  would  prefer  ov. 


42     On  the  Use  of  M?/  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 
SyXaxrcu  fiovXofievoi  on  ovk  6p0(o$  iyvay/cao-w,  dXX}  oloi  re  etai 

flT)    KtVOVVT€$    TO     €7Tt     AeO-/3(p     VCLVTIKOV     Kdl     TO     CLITO     IleX.    ilTlbv 

paStco?  afivvecrdcu — ib.,  VIII,  44,  1 :  rjyov/juevoi — SwcltoI  eo-eadcu 
Ttacracfrepvr)  firj  aiTOvvTes  xprjfiaTCi,  Tpi<f)€(,v  Ta<;  vav$. 

I  believe  that  in  all  of  these  cases  p,rj  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
participles  form  part  of  the  infinitive  clause.  It  is  true  that  in 
the  first  case  the  participle  could  be  explained  as  conditional,  but 
scarcely  in  the  others.  Cf.  Dem.,  iv,  15,  and  Isoc,  vin,  12,  which 
are  thus  explained  by  Rehdantz. 

Notice  also  Lysias,  xxrv,  18  :  toI$  p,ev  lo"%vpoi<;  iy^copet  firjBev 
avTol?  7rdcrxovo-Lv — vBpi&w,  where  the  participle,  though  attracted 
into  the  case  of  the  subject,  really  belongs  to  the  infinitive.  Simi- 
lar examples  are  Isoc.,  in,  64 ;  XV,  225,  289. 

In  Plato,  Rep.,  in,  389  C,  the  participle  seems  to  be  used  instead 
of  the  infinitive :  irphs — tov$  toiovtovs  ap^ovTa^  IBmottj  yfrev- 
aao-Oai  tclvtov  koli  fiel^ov  d/judpTrj/ia  <f>r)o-ofiev  r)  KafjuvovTi  7rpo? 
laTphv  r)  daKOvvTL  TTpo?  7rac8oTpLJ3r}v — fjurj  TaXrjOrj  Xeyecv,  rf  7rpo? 
Kvfiepvr)TT)v — fjurj  tcl  ovTa  XkyovTi.  This  participle  could  be  ex- 
plained as  conditional,  but  from  the  preceding  part  of  the  sentence 
we  should  expect  the  infinitive  to  be  used  here  also.  Plato  seems 
to  have  substituted  the  participle  instead.  Cf.  Laws,  vi,  773  E, 
where  a  similar  construction  is  thus  explained  by  Stallbaum. 

Notice  finally  Laws,  IV,  717  D,  E :  TeXevTrjaavTcov  Be  yovicov 
Ta<j>rj  fjuev  r)  cr(0(f)pov€arTdT7j  KaXXiaTTj,  firfO*  virepatpovTa  T(ov 
eldio-fiivav  oy/ccov  fi^T  eXXeiTrovTa.  The  participles  depend  on 
the  verbal  idea  in  Ta$r) — /caXXio-Trj  which  equals  Qdirreiv  koCK- 
Xlo-tov  icTTi.     Cf.  Stallbaum. 

The  full  list  of  passages  in  which  the  participle  with  p.rj  form- 
ing part  of  an  infinitive  clause  occurs,  is  as  follows : 


Theognis : 
280. 

Sophocles : 
Ajax,  1007. 
O.  R.,  1110. 

Iph.  Tau.,  1288. 
Medea,  239, 
815 

Pindar : 

(Rhesus,  590.) 
Frag.,  950. 

Nemea,  v,  14, 
vui,  4. 

Euripides : 
Hel.,  814. 
H.  F.,  203, 
285. 
Hipp.,  249. 

• 

Aeschylus : 

Sup.,  409. 

Eumen.,  301. 

Tragici  Min. : 
Incert.,  324, 
546. 

On  the  Use  of  Mt;  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Gi-eeh.     43 


Aristophanes : 

Hell.,  iv,  1,  35. 

Isaeus : 

Achar.,  354. 

v,  2,  38. 

in,  51. 

Knights,  905. 

vi,  1,  12. 

vi,  12. 

Clouds,  268. 

Oec,  vi,  7. 

IX,  11. 

Eccl.,  788. 

xn,  19. 

xi,  21. 

Plutus,  552, 

Conv.,  v,  4. 
Hiero,  n,  8. 

802. 

Rep.  Lac.,  vin,  2. 
Cyn.,  iv,  1. 

Demosthenes : 

i,6. 
iv,  15. 

Comici  Min. : 

vi,  25. 

Archippus,  43. 
Antiph.,  187,  5. 

(vn,  6.) 
vm,  76. 

Xenarchus,  4,  10. 

Antiphon : 

ix,  67. 

TMenander,  252,       "1 

n,  a,  8, 

(x,  45.) 

532,  11, 

IV,  a,  1. 

(xiii,  3.) 

L                    543,  4.  J 

V,  18. 

xiv,  33. 

VI,  1. 

xv,  28. 

xviii,  58, 

Herodotus : 

100, 

v,  18. 
vi,  7. 

Andocides : 
I,  113. 

125, 
■       159. 

j 
vii,  24. 
~~             ix,  41. 

(iv,  2.) 

xix,  64, 
114, 

218, 

Lysias : 
in,  25. 

237. 
xx,  72, 
90. 

Thucydides : 

i,  72,  1, 

iv,  4. 

xxi,  61, 

74,3, 

xn,  69. 

67. 

86,3, 

xix,  33, 

xxn,  56, 

120,  2. 

51. 

57. 

n,  43,  1, 

xxrv,  18. 

xxin,  122. 

65,8, 

xxxn,  19. 

xxiv,  65, 

83,5. 

69, 

m,  16, 1, 

77. 

39,5, 

Isocrates : 

xxvii,  55. 

42,5, 

in,  16, 

xxx,  29. 

59,1. 

58, 

xxxi,  14. 

iv,  78,  2, 

64. 

(xxxiv,  52.) 

118,  4. 

vi,  89  (bis). 

xxxvi,  12. 

vi,  36,  3, 

105. 

(xlvi,  5.) 

70,1, 

vm,  12. 

(xlvii,  56.) 

84,  1, 

ix,  39. 

lvii,  24. 

vn,  44,  5. 

x,  15. 

Tlviii,  1,  "1 

vm,  44, 1, 

xn,  123, 

22, 

68,4. 

147, 

25, 

181. 

xiv,  8. 

41, 

L           47.J 

Xenophon : 

55  (bis). 

Proem.,  34,  3, 

Cyr.,  ii,  4,  32. 

xv,  225, 

56,1. 

vm,  8,  11. 

265, 

Epis.,  ii,  1. 

Mem.,  ii,  8,  1, 

289. 
xvi,  9. 

7            7          7          7 

10,3. 

in,  9,  14. 

xix,  48. 

Aeschines : 

14,6. 

xxi,  15. 

i,  126. 

IV,  1,  1. 

Epis.,  ii,  3. 

m,  68. 

44     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 


Lycurgii8 : 

480  C, 

644  E. 

§28. 

494  A, 

iv,  717  D,  E. 

501  D, 
513  D, 

V,  730  A, 

732  B, 

Plato: 

Rep.,  i,  334  C, 

D, 

Apol.,  28  D, 

341  A. 

739  A. 

29  A, 

ii,  380  C, 

vi,  773  E, 

32  C. 

383  A. 

777  E. 

Phaedo.  78  A. 

in,  389  C, 

vn,  793  C. 

Oat.,  432  E. 

394  D, 

802  B, 

Theaet.,  160  A, 

416  D. 

806  A, 

172  A, 

iv,  443  D. 

816  E. 

188  A. 

v,  474  C. 

vni,  829  B, 

Soph.,  229  C. 

vi,  488  B, 

831  D, 

Polity  286  C, 

D.  E. 

838  E, 

295  D. 

vn,  520  B, 

857  B. 

Sym.,  204  A. 

539  D. 

ix,  873  D, 

Phaedrus,  242  E. 

vni,  548  D, 

877  A. 

Alcib.,  i,  117  D. 

552  A, 

x,  890  A. 

Laches,  201  A. 

554  A. 

xn,  942  A, 

Lysis,  210  E. 

Tim.,  32  A. 

958  E, 

Gorgias,  456  E, 

(Minos,  321  D.) 

965  A. 

459  C, 

Laws,  i,  640  B, 

Epinomis,  983  C. 

When  ov  is  found  instead  of  firj  in  this  construction,  the 
cause  is  usually  apparent.  It  is  either  adhaerescent,  as  in 
Eurip.,  Frag.,  578: 

wo-t  ov  irapovra  irovria^  virep  TrXa/co? 

TCLKel  KQ7T    OtKOV?  TT&VT    eiTlCTTaO-Qai  /ca\a><;. 

Cf.  Thuc,  II,  65,  8;  vm,  68,  4;  Isocr.,  vm,  25;  Xen.,  Cyr., 
II,  1,  16.  Or  a  verb  of  saying  or  thinking  precedes  and  throws 
the  image  of  oratio  obliqua  over  the  whole  sentence,  so  that  we 
have  ware — ov  with  the  participle.  Examples  are  Hdt.,  I,  189 ; 
Plato,  Gorgias,  458  E.1 

In  Xen.,  Oec,  vni,  21 :  egeo-Tt  teal  irelpav  Xa/x^dveiv  clvtcov  ovre 
tl  fyfAModevTas  ovre  Ti  TroKkh  7rovr/o-avTa<;,  the  negatives  must 
be  taken  with  the  principal  verb ;  otherwise  we  should  have  fjurf, 
Cf.  De  Re.  Eq.,  ix,  5  :  ov  Bel  efa7r«Wa>9  o-irav  dXX*  ^pe/iata)? 
Trpoadyeo-Oac  to5  ')(aklv<p,  irpavvovra,  ov  j3ia%6/jL€vov  rjpefielv. 

Dem.,  XV,  25  :  aroirov  i<m  wepX  r<ov  Sitealeov  v/j,a<z  8t,8do~tc€ip 
avrbv  ov  ret  Sl/ccaa  iroiovvra.  The  fact  is  emphasized,  hence  ov 
is  retained. 

1  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  vn,  174. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     45 

In  xix,  218,  the  negative  changes  from  fxrj  to  ov  after  coo-re. 
The  sentence  is  long  and  the  principal  verb  at  the  end  in  the 
indicative.  Perhaps  Demosthenes  started  it  with  the  intention 
of  using  the  infinitive,  but  changed  to  the  indicative  before  he 
finished  it.     Hence  the  change  in  the  negatives. 

9.    Supplementary  Participle  with  fir/. 

The  participle  frequently  takes  the  place  of  an  accusative  with 
the  infinitive  after  verbs  of  sense  action.  The  negative  of  this 
participle  is  generally  ov  when  the  force  of  the  oratio  obliqua  is 
strongly  felt,  except,  as  we  have  already  seen,  when  the  principal 
verb  is  an  imperative  or  expresses  a  condition  (cf.  p.  20).  But 
even  when  this  is  not  the  case  we  frequently  find  jxrj  both  with 
the  infinitive  and  the  participle  after  olBa,  vofxi^co,  and  other  similar 
verbs.  The  cause  of  this  change  must  lie  in  the  force  of  the  verb 
itself.  The  explanation  usually  advanced  is  as  follows  :  The  verb 
of  knowing  or  thinking  is  no  longer  felt  as  such,  but  becomes 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  verb  of  willy  and  hence  takes  pij  after 
the  analogy  of  such  verbs  as  ofivvfit,  Trio~Tevio,  and  the  like.1 

The  first  example  of  this  construction  is  found  in  Soph.,  O.  C, 
656: 

olcf  iycb  o~e  fjbrj  rcva 
evOevh"  dird^ovr  avBpa  7rpo9  $Lav  ifiov. 

Similar  examples  are  found  in  vv.  797,  1121 ;  Phil.,  79;  Thuc, 
i,  76,  1 ;  II,  17,  2;  v,  60,  5;  vi,  18,  7;  vn,  8,  2;  Xen.,  Cyr.,  vn, 
2,  22;  Aeschines,  n,  126.  Thuc,  vn,  8,  2,  is  the  least  clear  of 
these  examples,  but  even  there  vofiL^cov  seems  to  have  the  force 
of  i\,7ri%cov  :  eypaifrev  iTriaroXrjv,  vo/nl^cov  ovtcos  av  fjudXicrra  ttjv 
avroif  yvcb/jLWV  finBev  iv  rco  dyyekco  dcftavtorOelcrav  /j,ad6vTa<;  tov$ 
^Adwvaiovs  povXevcraadai  irepl  t^9  dXnOeias. 

Not  only  after  these  verbs  of  knowing  and  thinking,  where 
asseverative  force  is  easily  postulated,  do  we  find  this  construction 
used,  but  also  after  verbs  of  showing,  BeUvvfii,  diroc^aivco,  etc., 

1  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  i,  48;  xni,  259;  Humphreys  to  Soph.,  Antigone, 
1064. 


46     On  the  Use  of  Mtj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

where  such  an  explanation  is  more  difficult.  Cf.  Eurip.,  Tro., 
970: 

Kal  rr/vBe  hel%(D  fir)  Xeyovaav  evBitca. 

Similar  examples  are  Xen.,  Ages.,  I,  12;  Isoc.,  xn,  58  {evpoi  Tt? 
av) ;  XV,  144  (ov  followed  by  fir/);  Dem.,  xix,  212  (wcrre  c.  inf. 
precedes) ;  xxvil,  47  (7rw?  av  ti<;  eVtSetf eie,  where  the  question 
might  account  for  fir/) ;  Plato,  Euthyd.,  286  A.  Perhaps  the  same 
explanation  suffices  here  as  above,  but  it  is  rather  more  difficult  to 
feel  it.  Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,  §§  685  and  688,  explains 
the  irregularity  in  the  use  of  fir)  in  the  former  class,  as  well  as  in 
the  latter,  by  saying  that  "  the  fixed  earlier  use  of  fir)  in  other 
constructions  of  the  infinitive  affected  the  later  constructions  of 
indirect  discourse."  This,  however,  does  not  explain  why  the 
construction  is  only  sporadic  and  not  universal.  It  seems  better, 
therefore,  to  resort  to  the  explanation  adopted  above. 

10.     M?;  with  the  Participle  in  Interrogative  Sentences. 

As  the  last  class  of  the  first  division  of  our  subject  we  have  to 
treat  firj  with  the  participle  in  the  interrogative  sentence.  M77  is 
the  regular  negative  in  direct  questions  when  the  answer  expected 
is  negative  or  when  the  question  is  put  in  a  dubitative  form,  either 
with  the  subjunctive,  which  is  the  interrogative  form  of  the  pro- 
hibition, (cf.  Plato,  Phaedo,  79  A),  or  with  the  optative  and  av, 
which  implies  prevention.1  The  indirect  question  takes  fir)  if  this 
negative  would  have  been  used  in  the  direct  form,  and  also  in  the 
second  member  of  the  disjunctive  question  with  el — r)  or  elre — eire, 
where,  however,  ov  is  also  found. 

In  most  of  these  classes  we  find  fir}  with  the  participle  used,  not 
as  a  substitute  for  the  principal  verb,  but  as  forming  a  subordinate 
part  of  the  interrogative  sentence. 

Of  the  direct  questions  that  expect  or  anticipate  a  negative 
answer,  but  a  single  example  has  been  noted  in  which  fit}  with  the 
participle  appears,  i.  e.,  Plato,  Sophistes,  267  C :  M<bv  ovv  iravTe? 
aTTOTWfxavovat,  tov  Sokclv  elvat,  Slfcaioi  firjSa/icbs  ovre?  ; 

1  Cf.  Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,  \\  291,  292. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     47 

The  direct  dubitative  question  is  somewhat  better  represented. 
Examples  are,  Aeschylus,  Agam.,  786  : 

7ra)9  ere  Trpoa-eiiray  ;  7Tg3?  ere  0-€y3tfft> 
firjd'  V7re papas    fir)  6*  viroKafi^ras 
/caipbv  xdpiTO<; ; 

Dem.,  xix,  320 ;  xx,  60 ;  Plato,  Phaedo,  79  A  j  Sophistes,  218  E. 
Possibly  we  may  also  include  here  sentences  like  Plato,  Philebus, 
43  A :  Xeyovac  yap  ovv,  /cal  So/codal  <ye  ov  (fravXax;  \eyetv.  7nw9 
yap  av  fir)  (j>av\oL  ye  ovres ;  which  commentators  usually  explain 
by  the  Latin  translation  "quippe  cum  or  qui."  Cf.  also  Alcib., 
11,  141  C;  Laws,  639  C.  and  D. 

If  the  dubitative  question  is  put  in  an  indirect  form,  fir]  is  of 
course  retained.     Examples  are  Theognis,  913  : 

<j>povTi%(0  rovrcov  r)v  tlv  ico  Trporepnv, 

rj  fjLT)8ev  Ba7rava>v  rpv^co  ftiov  iv  fca/corvTi,  ktc. 


Aristoph.,  Peace,  21 : 

7ro0ev  av  irpialfinv  plva  fir)  rerprffievnv. 


Tt9 — ifiol  KareL7raT(o 


Cf.  Xen.,  Cyr.,  iv,  3,  4;  Hell.,  v,  4,  29;  Isaeus,  IV,  14 :  aKeirreov 
Brj  vfiiv  Trpwrov  fiev  el  iiroirjaaro  ra$  Biadrj/cas,  eirena  el  fir)  irapa- 
vodov  Biedero.  Plato,  Apol.,  22  E  :  coare  fie  ifiavrbv  dvepcorav — 
irorepa  Be^alfirjv  av  ovrw  coairep  €%g)  eyeiv  firjre  re  o-o<j>b<;  cov  rr)v 
i/celvcov  cro(J3Lav  firjre  dfia6r)<$  rrjv  dfiadlav. 

Cf.  also  Char.,  167  D;  168  A;  Rep.,  m,  412  E;  VI,  504  E. 
As  has  been  said  already,  the  disjunctive  question  may  take  fir] 
as  well  as  ov  in  its  second  member.  The  participle  is  also  occa- 
sionally found  in  this  position  and  is  of  course  also  negatived  by 
fir).  Examples  occur  chiefly  in  prose,  but  there  is  one  in  Aeschylus, 
Agam.,  261 : 

crv  t?  ei  tl  feeSvov,  etre  fir)  ireirva-fievr), 

evayyiXoio-iv  ekiria-iv  6vr)7ro\el<; 

kXvocfi  av  evefypcov. 

In  prose  we  have  Xen.,  Mem.,  1,  2,  45 :  oo~a  Tt?  fir)  Treio~a$  dvay- 
fcd&i  Tt,va  7roi€iv,  etre  ypd^xov  e'lre  fir]^ypd<f>a)v).     Lysias,  IV,  15, 


48     On  the  Use  of  Mr}  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

is  similar.  Isseus,  VII,  12  :  ttr3  ovv  EvttoXk;  yeyivTjTai  atrios 
(fir))  Sovvcu  (ftovXijOel?),  eiTy  '  AiroXXohcapo^  Xafielv  fir)  idekrjaas, 
ras  e^Opa?,  ore  Stefieivav  to  epyov  BeSrjXcjKe.  firj-ftovXrjOei?  in  the 
first  member  of  the  sentence  is  due  to  the  correction  of  the  editors. 
The  MSS.  have  simply  Bovvai. 

Plato,  Sophistes,  222  B :  ^9  Be  farg  xah€^  €'T€  M&v  ™0ei? 
rjfiepov  etre  dvdpco7T(ov  firjBefiiav  r)yei  6r}pav. 

Other  examples  are  Char.,  171  C;  Laches,  184  B;  189  A; 
Laws,  ix,  856  B ;  xn,  962  E. 

The  following  table  sums  up  in  a  brief  compass  the  results  of 
the  preceding  pages  in  which  the  use  of  fir}  with  the  participle 
depending  on  the  principal  verb  of  the  sentence  has  been  treated. 


Authors. 

I 

a 

> 

1 

4 

0 

98 

I 

.a 
s 

-a 

H 

a 
1 

t 
1 

1 

1 

1 

*o3*S 
SI 

1 

a 
a 

a 

f 

1 

S 

1 

! 
0 

Homer 

1 

3 

2 

1 

"T 

9 

2 

Hesiod 

2 

7 
1 
5 

8 

22 

1 

2 

4 

5 

16 

11 

14 

40 

138 

5 

Lyric  Poets,   not  in- 
cluding Pindar 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

9 

2 

6 

3 

4 

20 

17 

85 

64 

217 

...... 

1 

1 
'2" 

....... 

13 

Pindar 

1 
...... 

5 

Aeschylus 

1 
3 

""3 

7 

1 
4 
11 
1 
2 
2 
2 

5 

19 
31 
49 

129 

1 

2 

2 

..„., 

..„.. 

1 
2 
1 

15 

12 

Sophocles 

27 

Euripides 

62 

Tragici  Min 

4 

Aristophanes 

3 

1 

...... 

2 

7 
2 

34 

1 
...... 

4 

...... 

1 
5 

13 
5 

30 

4 
2 

8 

10 

30 

130 

75 

270 

21 

Comici  Min 

12 

Herodotus 

21 

Thucydides 

4 
2 
5 
1 

17 

'3" 
5 

16 

28 

62 

Xenophon 

90 

Orators 

293 

Plato 

253 

Total 

882 

From  this  summary  we  see  that  the  use  of  fir}  with  the  participle 
in  clauses  that  demand  that  negative  is  very  rare  in  Epic  poetry, 
and  not  much  more  frequent  in  Lyric.  It  begins  to  be  common 
in  the  dramatists  and  reaches  its  highest  development,  both  in 
respect  to  frequency  of  occurrence  and  variety  of  constructions,  in 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     49 

the  orators  and  Plato.  In  many  of  the  passages  cited  the  parti- 
ciple could  not  possibly  be  resolved  into  a  finite  verb  similar  to 
the  principal  one  and  hence  we  must  conclude,  contrary  to  Aken's 
view,  that  the  principal  verb  does  frequently  exert  a  sufficient 
influence  on  an  adjacent  participle  to  cause  firj  to  be  used  when, 
strictly  speaking,  it  ought  to  be  negatived  by  ov. 

II. 
The  Independent  Participle  with  fir). 

We  turn  now  to  the  second  main  division  of  our  subject.  We 
have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages  what  influence  the  principal  verb 
exerts  over  a  participle  that  forms  an  integral  part  of  the  thought ; 
we  have  now  to  consider  what  effect  the  predication  that  the  parti- 
ciple itself  implies  has  on  the  choice  of  the  negative.  According 
to  the  principle  already  laid  down  in  the  introduction,  when  the 
participle  can  be  resolved  into  a  declarative  sentence  it  takes  as  its 
negative  ov,  but  when,  on  the  other  hand,  it  represents  a  conditional 
proposition  it  must  have  fir).  This  is  the  element  that  lies  at  the 
basis  of  the  independent  use  of  the  participle  with  fitf. 

The  participle  may  appear  in  a  variety  of  forms  :  It  may  repre- 
sent the  protasis  of  a  condition,  the  apodosis  of  which  is  either 
expressed  or  understood ;  it  may  take  the  form  of  a  concessive 
sentence  ;  it  may  appear  as  a  generic  sentence,  with  or  without  the 
article,  but  in  all  these  uses  it  is  the  conditional  element  that 
requires  fir)  rather  than  ov. 

The  two  main  classes  into  which  these  participles  fall  are :  first, 
those  in  which  the  conditional  force  is  actually  expressed  in  the 
form  of  a  condition,  the  participle  representing  the  protasis ;  and 
secondly,  those  in  which  the  conditional  force  appears  in  the  generic 
use  of  the  participle,  generally  with  the  article,  but  sometimes 
without.     Let  us  take  them  up  in  this  order. 

1.     The  Conditional  Participle  with  /at}. 

The  Greeks  were  not  very  fond  of  the  conditional  participle. 
It  was  too  shadowy,  too  inexact  for  them.     Hence  their  avoidance 


50     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

of  it  in  laws  and  decrees.  In  classical  Greek  we  have  noted  about 
six  hundred  examples  of  the  conditional  participle  with  which  the 
negative  firj  is  employed.  But  even  when  thus  negatived  the 
conditional  force  is  sometimes  hard  to  distinguish,  and  this  diffi- 
culty is  increased  when,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  connection  with 
the  infinitive,  the  firf  might  be  due  to  some  other  cause.  The  cases 
that  are  absolutely  certain  are  those  in  which  the  participle  is  used 
in  antithesis  to,  or  parallel  to,  el  with  the  finite  verb,  fiev  and  Be 
being  frequently  employed  to  bring  out  the  antithesis  more  clearly. 
To  this  class  of  the  conditional  participle  we  first  direct  our  atten- 
tion. The  number  of  them  is  not  large,  and  the  construction 
belongs  chiefly  to  prose.  To  take  an  extreme  case  first,  notice  how 
two  different  authors,  speaking  about  the  same  subject  and  using 
almost  exactly  the  same  words,  employ,  the  one,  the  participle,  the 
other,  the  finite  verb.     In  Aeschylus,  Septem,  427  f.,  Capaneus 

Oeov  re  yap  deXovro<s  eicrrepcreiv  itoXlv 
Kal  /jlt)  Oekovros. 

while  Euripides,  in  the  Supplices,  499  f.,  makes  him  say : 

cofioaev  iroXiv 
irepaeiv  Oeov  OeXovros,  rjv  re  firj  deXrj. 

Note  again  Soph.,  O.  R.,  1158  : 

OI.  a\V  et<?  rob*  rj%6L<;  /jltj  Xeyo&v  ye  tovvBikov. 
OE.   7roXXo)  ye  /jlclXXov,  rjv  (f>pdo-Q)}  BcoXXv/juat,. 

In  Euripides,  Andromache,  382,  the  contrast  is  heightened  by 
the  use  of  Be : 

a>5  rjv  ddvys  o~v,  irals  08?  eicfyevyei  fiopov, 
aov  8*  ov  OeXovans  /cardaveiv,  rovBe  /crevcb. 

ov  is  due  to  adhserescence. 

In  Thuc,  V,  46,  2,  the  Athenians  bid  their  ambassadors  say 
to  the  Spartans :  rrjv  Boicotwv  ^vfifia^lav  avelvai,  rjv  fit)  e?  ra$ 
<nrovSa<;  iaitoa-i,  while  in   §  4  the  ambassadors  say :  el  firj  ttjv 


On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     51 

^v/jL/na^iav  avrjaovau  BotcoTOt?  /^rj  iaiovacv  e?  ra<;  <T7rovha<;  /ere. 
Here  firj  with  the  participle  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  preceding 
condition.  Other  examples  in  which  this  parallelism  exists  are 
Plato,  Sophistes,  263  C;  Par.,  139  C;  145  D  (bis) ;  165  E; 
Philebus,  42  E. 

Examples  in  which  the  two  clauses  are  antithetical  are,  in  addi- 
tion to  those  quoted  above,  Hdt.,  I,  187;  XeU.,  Mem.,  in,  6,  14; 
Cyr.,  v,  2,  32;  vm,  1,  12;  Antiphon,  n,  7,  8;  Isseus,  iv,  5; 
Dem.,  xvi,  30;  xxin,  110;  xxvn,  20;  Plato,  Meno,  98  E; 
Rep.,  1,  337  E;  v,  459  C;  Laws,  vi,  783  E;  vn,  820  D;  822  C; 
xi,  930  B;  Philemon,  Frag,  213  (with  fjurj  ov).  These  examples 
show  better  than  any  others  how  nearly  the  Greeks  had  come  to 
regard  the  participle  as  a  substitute  for  the  finite  verb. 

We  turn  now  to  those  conditional  participles  which  stand  by 
themselves  and  do  not  have  this  antithetical  or  parallel  clause  to 
render  certain  the  conditional  force.  We  are  thus  left  to  the 
general  context  to  decide  as  to  the  nature  of  the  participle.  Some- 
times the  decision  is  by  no  means  easy,  as  the  conditional  force  is 
frequently  not  very  strong,  especially  when  the  apodosis  is  not 
expressed. 

This  class  forms  one  of  the  largest  divisions  of  our  subject, 
being  only  surpassed  by  the  generic  participle  with  the  article. 
With  the  exception  of  Epic  poetry,  it  is  found  in  all  spheres  of 
literature,  and  abounds  most  in  the  orators  and  Plato,  who,  as  I 
have  no  doubt  statistics  would  prove,  make  more  frequent  use  of 
the  conditional  proposition  than  any  other  writers. 

We  give  at  once  a  table  showing  the  use  of  the  construction  by 
the  different  authors,  as  the  class  is  too  numerous  to  permit  us  to 
cite  all  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs  : 

Homer 1  Tragici  Minores 4 

Hesiod Aristophanes 8 

Lyric  Poets,  not  including  Comici  Minores 6 

Pindar 2  Herodotus 30 

Pindar Thucydides 42 

Aeschylus 11  Xenophon 52 

Sophocles 11  Orators 161 

Euripides 30  Plato  202 

Total 560 


52     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek 

We  notice  that  Epic  poetry  is  represented  by  but  a  single 
example,  and  even  this  is  not  a  good  one,  as  the  negative  goes 
more  closely  with  the  following  noun.  The  passage  is  Iliad,  xm, 
47  f.: 

AXavre  o~<f)(b  fiev  re  o-acoaere  \abv  ^A^accov 
okicr)?  jivrjaafieveo,  firfBe  Kpvepoio  <f>6/3oio. 

This  avoidance  of  fir]  with  the  conditional  participle  in  Epic 
poetry  is  certainly  not  due  to  a  lack  of  opportunity  to  use  it. 
Doubtless  it  is  caused  by  the  adjectival  nature  of  the  participle 
itself,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made,  and  which  does 
not  permit  the  use  of  fir],  and  to  Homer's  reluctance  to  combine 
the  negative  fir]  with  anything  else  but  the  verb. 

The  orators  vary  much  in  this  use  of  the  participle — Demos- 
thenes having  seventy-four  examples,  while  Lycurgus,  Deinarchus 
and  Hypereides  (in  the  single  speech  examined)  do  not  use  it  at 
all.  In  the  dialogues  of  Plato,  also,  we  see  the  same  variation. 
The  Parmenides,  for  instance,  has  twenty-seven  examples,  while 
the  Phaedrus,  a  slightly  longer  dialogue,  has  but  one,  and  the 
Gorgias,  a  much  longer  dialogue,  but  three. 

Some  subordinate  classifications,  and  some  few  passages  that 
need  explanation,  will  now  be  mentioned. 

We  sometimes  find  fir]  with  the  participle  equivalent  to  a  con- 
ditional wish  =  "  provided  that  not,  if  only  not,"  Latin  dum  ne 
with  the  subjunctive.     Examples  are,  Aeschylus,  Eumen.,  693 : 

iv  he  tc3  creftas 
acrrcbv  <j>o/3o<;  re  avyyevrjs  to  fir)  ahacelv 
o~%r]crei  to  T3  r)fiap   Kal  kclt*  €v<ppovrjv  o//,w?, 

aVTCJV    7TO\lTGt)V    fJ/Tj    TTLKaLVOVVT(OV    VO/JLOVS. 

ye  is  sometimes  added  to  strengthen  this  force,  as  in  Euripides, 
Alcestis,  1106  : 

Xprj,  aov  ye  fir)  /xiWopTos  opyalveiv  ifioi. 

Other  examples  are  Euripides,  Helena,  1050,  1052 ;  Heraclidae, 
264;  Trag.  Min.,  Frag.  Incert.,  166;  (Menander,  Mon.,  563); 
Thuc,  v,  41,  2;  Xen.,  Anab.,  1,  9,  13;  Plato,  Theaet.,  160  D; 


On  the  Use  of  Mr]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     53 

Kep.,  v,  465  B;  ix,  586  E;  Laws,  vm,  824  B,  844  A;  x, 
895  B. 

In  Soph.,  O.  R.,  289,  there  is  a  construction,  an  exact  parallel 
to  which  has  not  been  noted.     It  is  the  oft  cited  passage : 

iraXat  Be  fir)  irapiinv  Oavfid^erai. 

fir)  Trapcov  =  el  fir)  irdpeaTi,  and  this  full  expression  is  not  infre- 
quently found.  Cf.  Thuc,  IV,  85,  2 :  Oavfid^co — el  fir)  d<rfievoi<; 
vfjLLV  d<j)l<yfiai. 

We  may,  however,  include  in  this  same  category  of  fit)  with 
the  participle  after  verbs  of  emotion  those  cases  in  which  the 
participle  is  used  after  alcrxvvofiai,  and  is  equivalent  to  the  pro- 
tasis of  a  condition.  Cf.  Xen.,  Cyr.,  in,  2,  16 :  alcryyvoifieff  av 
<roi  fir)  a7roBtB6vre<;.  See  Hertlein's  note.  Other  examples  are 
Cyr.,  vm,  2,  13;  Hell,  VI,  5,  44;  Lysias,  xxv,  34;  Plato,  Pro- 
tag.,  312  A;  Sym.,  218  D;  Hip.,  Maior,  298  B. 

In  Soph.,  O.  R.,  1368,  we  have  another  rare  use  of  the  par- 
ticiple : 

tcpelaacov  yap  rjo-Oa  jirj/cer  cbv  r)   %wv  tv<j>\6<;. 

The  peculiarity  here  lies  in  the  use  of  the  personal  instead  of  the 
impersonal  construction.  It  really  stands  for  Kpela-aov  r)v  ere  firj- 
Ker  elvai,  but  the  participle  may  be  explained  as  conditional. 
Only  two  other  examples  have  been  noted  in  classical  Greek. 
These  are  Lysias,  xxvi,  4 ;  Aeschines,  I,  192.1 

The  equivalence  of  cause  and  condition,  as  expressed  by  the 
participle,  was  one  of  the  most  direct  lines  by  which  later  writers 
arrived  at  the  use  of  fir]  with  the  purely  causal  participle.  It  may 
be  well,  therefore,  to  cite  some  examples  of  this  construction  to 
show  how  easily  they  could  be  led  astray.  Cf.,  for  instance, 
Aristoph.,  Clouds,  792 : 

dirb  yap  6\ovfiac  fir)  fiaOoav  xXcoTToaTpofetv. 

=  "For  want  of  learning."  Cf.  Humphreys'  note.  Hdt.,  in, 
65  :  ovtos  fiev  TereXevre/ce — tovtov  Be  firf/cero  eovros — yiyveTai 
fioc  dvayKaiorarov  /ere.  =  "since  he  is  no  longer  living,"  but  this  is 


1  For  examples  in  late  Greek,  cf.  Lobeck  to  Soph.,  Ajax,  634. 
5 


54     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

put  in  a  conditional  form.  Cf.  Plato,  Sym.,  180  C :  el  pev  yap 
el?  r)v  6  "Epa>9  /caXco?  av  el^e.  vvv  Be  ov  yap  ecrnv  el<z.  /xrj  ovtos 
Be  ei/09  opOorepov  eo~n  ktL  Xen.,  Mem.,  I,  6, 12  :  St/caio?  fiev  ovv 
av  eXris,  on  ovk  e^airaTas  eirl  irkeove^ia,  o-o<f>b$  Be  ovk  av,  fiwBevo? 
ye  a%ia  €7rio-rdfievo<;.  Notice  that  in  this  case  the  participle  is 
parallel  with  a  clause  with  on.  Antiphon,  II,  y@,  4 :  a&\ia  fiev 
ovv  izaayjto  /jltj  airokoyelo-dai  fjuovov  /3i,a%6/j,€VO$.  Lysias,  XIX,  29 : 
irporepov  fir]  virap^ovcrrj^  ovaias  (here  the  causal  force  seems  to 
predominate).  Isoc,  xvin,  52 :  Bacafyw  fiev  ovk  rjglov — aUw? 
re  real  /jltj  irapovro^  tovtov  firjBe  fieWovro?  iroir)aeiv  ktc.  Isseus, 
III,  72  :  d\\'  ovre  iyevero  ovt  eo~Ti,  /jlt)  yevo/juevcov  Brj  iralBcov 
yvrjo-lcov  eiceivq*,  iyyvrepo)  rjficbv  ovBe  eh — ib.,  V,  16  :  dfi<f)olv 
Be  ralv  BiaOr\Kaiv  aKvpoiv  yiyvofjuevaiv,  Kal  erepa?  /jLwBefjbias 
6/JLo\oyov/jL€vw<;  eivai,  Kara  Bocriv  fiev  ovBevl  irpoar)Ke  tov  Kkrjpov.1 
Cf.  further  Dem.  (xin,  36) ;  xxxvi,  6  ;  xxxix,  35. 

We  see,  then,  from  passages  like  these  and  some  few  others  to 
be  mentioned  later,  in  which  firj  seems  to  be  used  with  the  purely 
causal  participle,  how  easily  men  whose  sensibilities  for  the  deli- 
cate shades  of  the  language  had  been  dulled  to  some  extent,  and 
who  were  always  striving  for  that  which  was  more  forcible  and 
expressive,  could  be  led  to  feel  that  firj  was  the  proper  negative 
of  the  causal  participle. 

The  following  are  a  few  rather  difficult  passages  in  which  the 
conditional  force  of  the  participle  is  not  very  manifest,  but  which, 
I  think,  may  be  classed  under  this  head. 

The  first  is  Soph.,  Philoctetes,  1161  : 

Tt?  a>8'  iv  avpais  rpe^erai 
fiv/cen  fiwBevbs  Kparvvcov  oca  irefiireu  ftioBwpos  ala ; 

The  participle  is  generic,  says  Jebb,  with  his  usual  explanation 
when  in  a  difficulty.  Aken,  p.  229,  prefers  ov.  I  believe,  how- 
ever, that  while  the  participle  is  largely  temporal,  there  is  sufficient 
conditional  force  implied  to  cause  fit]  to  be  used. 

1  For  another  explanation  of  yA\  here,  see  Spieker,  A.  J.  P.,  vi,  323,  who  says 
that  the  participle  has  no  conditional  force  and  that  "  p{  follows  6fio\oyovfi4vrjs 
grammatically  as  the  regular  negative  after  that  verb."  But  the  similarity  of 
this  passage  with  the  others  cited  leads  me  to  believe  that  it  may  be  explained 
in  the  same  way  as  they. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     55 

Hdt.  VI,  130  :  iraac  vfilv,  el  oldv  re  eirj,  yapitpifirfv  av,  firjr  eva 
vfiecov  e^aiperov  diroKpiv(ov  firjre  tou?  Xoittovs  diroBoKifid^v. 
Here  we  apparently  have  firj  with  the  participle  in  the  apodosis ; 
but  the  participle  really  contains  a  separate  condition.  Hence  fir]. 
For  a  similar  example  cf.  Xen.,  Cyr.,  vn,  5,  86. 

Thuc,  I,  90,  1  :  AaKeBaifioviot,  Be  alaOofievoi  rb  fieXXov  rjXOov 
irpecrPeLa,  ra  fiev  Kal  avrol  r)Biov  av  6p<ovre<$  firjr  i/celvov?  firjr 
aXXov  firjBeva  T6t%09  e^ovra. — firj  is  doubtless  due  to  the  condi- 
tional force  of  eyovra.  But  the  sentence  is  really  a  wish  and  this 
would  also  demand  firj.  Cf.  Plato,  Sym.,  216  C  :  rjSico?  av  cBocfit 
avrbv  fir)  ovra  iv  avOpcoirois,  where  firj  can  also  be  explained  as 
depending  on  the  conditional  force  of  ovra. 

With  Xen.,  Hipp.,  I,  18  :  to  fiev  ttvkvcl  igdyeiv  fir)  iroXefiov 
ovto?  tcro)9  oxXrjpov,  compare  Dem.,  I,  27 ;  Xen.,  Apol.  Soc,  §  24. 

Plato,  Laws,  IV,  718  D  :  ra,  rolvvv  Br)  Xe^Oevra  eBo%e  ri  fioi 
trpovpyov  Bpav  et?  to  irepl  wv  av  irapaivf)  fir)  iravrdiraa-iv  G&fir)<; 
'xfrv^rj^  Xafibfieva,  fiaXXov  6"  r)fiepa>rep6v  re  av  cucoveuv  Kal  evfieve- 
o-repov.  Stallbaum  explains  firj — Xa/36fieva  as  conditional.  But 
we  seem  to  need  an  infinitive  rather  than  a  participle  and  unless 
something  has  been  dropped  from  the  text,  I  should  assume  that 
the  participle  here  takes  the  place  of  the  infinitive ;  cf.  Rep.,  in, 
389  C;  Laws,  vi,  773  E;  Thuc,  vi,  1,  2  (MSS.  reading),  where 
such  a  substitution  seems  to  have  taken  place. 

There  still  remain  to  be  noticed  a  few  passages  in  which  ov 
appears  to  be  used  contrary  to  the  general  rule.  The  first  is  Hdt., 
VII,  172  :  ftorjdeeiv  Be  ov  ftovXofievou  avay/caLrjv  r)fiiv  ovBefiiav  oloi 
re  eo~re  irpocrfyepeiv.  Here  Stein,  who  seems  to  think  that  Hero- 
dotus is  careless  in  his  use  of  the  negatives,  says,  "  ov  fiovXofievoi 
ist  wohl  nur  ein  versehen  far  fir)  fiovXo/ievoi."  It  is  much  better, 
however,  to  explain  a  negative,  if  possible,  than  to  accuse  an  author 
of  making  a  mistake.  This  may  possibly  be  an  instance  of  ad- 
haerescence,  which,  it  is  true,  is  rare  with  /3ovXofiai,  but  which 
the  analogy  of  ovk  eOeXco  might  easily  induce,  or  Herodotus'  rather 
frequent  use  of  ov  in  the  protasis  may  have  produced  ov  here.  Cf. 
I,  212,  el  Be  ravra  ov  iroLrjcre^ — VI,  9,  el  Be  ravra  fiev  ov  7rot- 
rjaovcri — VII,  10  0,  el  Be  ravra  fiev  viroBvveLV  ovk  eBeXrjae^ — 
VII,  16,  el  Be — ovk  old  re  avrb  rraparpetyai. 


56     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek, 

Plato,  Apol.,  20  C,  is  another  example  of  ov  in  what  seems  to 
be  a  condition  :  ov  yap  hrjirov,  aov  ye  ovSev  rcov  aWeov  ireptT- 
rorepov  irpayfiarevofievov,  eiretTa  rocravrr)  (j>r}fir)  re  koX  X0705 
yeyovev.  Here  the  participle  seems  to  be  conditional,  but  it  really 
states  a  fact,  and  hence  ov  not  fir}  is  used.  So  Aken,  "nicht '  wenn' 
aber  '  weil.' " 

Phaedo,  63  B :  el  <pfir)v  fir/  r)%eiv  irap  avQpoairovs  a/xelvovs  r)8l- 
kovv  av  ovk  ayavaKTtav  to5  Savdrco.  Again  the  participle  seems 
to  have  a  conditional  force,  but  Socrates  wishes  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  he  is  not  displeased  with  the  idea  of  death.  So  Hein- 
dorf,  "  ego  qui  non  indignor  aut  quod  non  indignor." 

Theaet.,  193  B:  ovBiiror  iyco — tcl  yfrevBr)  Sogdo-co — ovre  yiyvco- 
o-kodv,  ovre  dyvotav  afi<f><0,  ovre  top  fiev,  top  $*  ov  ytyvdbo-Kow. 
Here  ov  yiyvdoo-fccov  is  conditional,  as  are  also  the  other  parti- 
ciples, ov  can  be  explained  by  adhaerescence  corresponding  to 
dyvour  preceding,  or  as  due  to  the  influence  of  the  other  negatives 
which  simply  continue  the  preceding  ovheiroTe. 

Rep.,  VII,  51 8  C  :  <f>ao~l  Be  irov  ovk  eVouo-779  iv  rrj  yfrvxf}  eVt- 
o-TrjfjLT)?  a<f>eU  ivrtdevcu.  Here  the  use  of  ov  rather  than  fir}  shows 
the  impudence  of  these  so-called  professors,  who  deny  that  the 
soul  has  any  knowledge  until  it  has  been  instructed  by  them. 

2.    Concessive  Participle  with  fir}. 

After  the  pure  conditional  participle  we  take  up  the  concessive 
participle.  Our  justification  for  placing  it  here  is  that  it  most 
frequently  appears  in  the  form  koX  fir}  with  the  participle,  which 
is  virtually  conditional.  We  must  distinguish  at  the  outset  the 
concessive  from  the  adversative  participle.  Theoretically  this  is 
very  easy  to  do,  for  the  adversative  states  an  opposing  fact,  and 
hence  has  the  negative  ov,  while  the  concessive  grants  an  opposing 
notion,  and  hence  has  the  negative  fir}}  Practically,  however,  it 
is  often  very  hard  to  distinguish  them,  especially  when  fir}  may  be 
due  to  the  influence  of  the  principal  sentence.  Take  for  example 
Xen.,  Mem.,  IV,  1,1:  eVel  koX  to  i/ceivov  fiefivrjo-Oat,  firj  irapovTo? 
ov  fitKpa  oxfreXei.     Here  the  participle  is  undoubtedly  adversative, 

1  Gildereleeve,  Justin  Martyr,  1,  7,  7. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,     57 

and  fir)  depends  on  the  infinitive  clause  to  which  the  participle 
belongs.   .  So  Soph.,  O.  R.,  1110  : 

el  yjpr]  rt,  icdfie  fir)  o-vva\\d^avrd  7TG>, 
irpea-fteLSy  o-raOfiacrdai,  rov  ftorrjp  opav  So  /cob. 

Again  the  participle  is  adversative,  and  fir]  depends  on  the  infini- 
tive. Ellendt  says  "  icaiirep  fir},"  but  tca'nrep  is  always  construed 
with  ov  in  classical  Greek. 

Isoc.  (i,  24) :  iav  fir)  Seo/ievo?  rb  Betadac  irpoo-nroif).  Here  the 
participle  might  be  regarded  as  concessive,  since  it  is  a  mere 
assumed  case,  but  firj  might  just  as  well  depend  on  the  condition. 

These  and  similar  instances  we  have  classified  under  the  head  to 
which  their  principal  verbs  belong.  We  take  up  here  only  those 
participles  that  seem  to  be  more  truly  concessive. 

Another  class  which  all  the  grammarians  place  under  the  head 
of  the  concessive  participle  is  illustrated  by  Eurip.,  Frag.,  440 : 

tyvvaacl  rrelQov  firj&e  rdXr)6r)  kXvcov. 

and  by  Aristophanes,  Acharnians,  222 : 

fir)  ryap  €<y%dvOL  7TOT€ 

firjBe  irep  yepovras  ovras  i/ccfrvyobv  'A^a/^ea?. 

where,  however,  strictly  speaking,  the  participle  is  not  negatived, 
and  fir)  really  depends  on  the  preceding  verb.  For  other  examples, 
cf.  Soph.,  Ajax,  1010  f . ;  Eurip.,  Alcestis,  367  (parodied  by 
Aristoph.,  Achar.,  895) ;  Antiphon,  v,  16;  Dem.,  xix,  42. 

A  particle  is  frequently  used  to  bring  out  the  adversative  or  con- 
cessive force  of  the  clause  more  clearly.  Those  generally  employed 
are  Kairrep,  kclL  ravra  and  /caL  Of  these,  /caLrrep  is  always  con- 
strued with  ov  (as  has  been  said  above),  and  hence  the  participle 
connected  with  it  must  be  adversative,  ical  ravra  is  also  generally 
found  with  ov,  but  sometimes  fir]  is  used.  Cf.  Aristoph.,  Plutus, 
802 : 

o>9  r)Bv  rrpdrreiv,  (ovBpe?,  ear  evScufiovcos 

/cat  ravra  firjSev  igevey/covr  oi/coOev. 

Isseus,  X,  23 :  el  fir)8e  rov  rr}<;  firjrpb?  icXfjpov  Xtf-fro/iai,  real  ravra 
firjBe  eypvrusv  rovrcov  errevey/celv  Trap    orov  rror   etXr)<fraat,.     In 


58     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek, 

both  these  cases  ^77  might  depend  on  the  principal  sentence.  With 
zeal,  however,  fit]  is  more  frequently  found,  and  where,  too,  the 
concessive  force  is  more  evident.     Cf.  Soph.,  O.  C,  666  : 

0/LfcG>9  8e   KOLfJLOV  /JL7)  TTdpOVTOS  61K  OTl 

rovfibv  (f>v\d^ai  <r  ovofia. 

Possibly  Aeschylus,  Sup.,  79,  belongs  here,  but  the  text  is 
uncertain.  Instead  of  /cal  firj  reXeov  Sovres,  some  editors  read 
fjfia  fir)  reXeov  S<We<?,  which  entirely  changes  the  construction. 
Other  examples  are  Euripides,  Electra,  531 ;  Frag.  Trag.,  Sosi- 
phanes,  3;  Hdt.,  II,  5;  II,  35;  vn,  214;  Thuc,  VI,  16,  5;  VII, 
63,  3;  vm,  73,  5;  Xen.,  Ages.,  vm,  1;  De  Re  Eq.,  vi,  16; 
Antiphon,  v,  87;  Andoc,  I,  114;  Isoc,  xvn,  29;  xvin,  25; 
Isseus,  vi,  54  ;  Dem.,  xxn,  18  ;  xxm,  163 ;  xxxvn,  18  ;  Li,  7  ; 
(lxi,  28);  Epis.,  n,  12;  Plato  (Alcib.,  n,  139  E).  Tn  the 
passages  underlined  the  participle  forms  part  of  a  clause  that 
demands  /mtj,  but  in  the  others  the  cause  of  fxrj  must  lie  in  the 
participle  itself.  It  is  fair  to  assume,  therefore,  that  in  the  former 
class  also  p,r)  could  depend  on  the  participle. 

ov  is  occasionally  found  in  this  connection,  owing  to  the  influ- 
ence of  adhaerescence.     Cf.  Homer,  Iliad,  iv,  300 : 

6<j>pa  teal  ovk  iOeXcov  tl<$  avay/calr)  7ro\€/j,i£oi. 

=  even  if  or  though  he  does  not  wish.     Cf.  Sappho,  i,  24  : 

Ta^ect)?  fyikrjaei,  kcovk  iOeXoiaa. 

Theognis,  392,  1342. 

In  the  following  passages  no  particle  is  used,  but  the  participles 
seem  to  have  a  concessive  force.  Plato,  Gorgias,  492  B :  oh  iijbv 
diroXavevv  ra>v  ayad&v  kcu  firjSevbs  ifnroSojv  ovto$,  avTol  iavrovs 
heaTroTTjv  liraydyoivTO  ;  Ion,  535  D :  o?  av  K€Koo~firj/jLevo<;  io-dfjTC 
TroitciXrj — kXairj  t  iv  dvalaw  /cal  koprals,  firjBev  a7ro\co\€tcax;  rov- 
tcov — fiTjBevb?  airohvovTOs.  Laws,  I,  648  C :  rj  to  irapdirav  ovk  av 
XP<P°>  ptfifo  olKKo  iytcaXwv  t^>  irdi^iarv ;  these  could  be  explained 
as  conditional  or  generic. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,     59 


3.    The  Generic  Participle  with  fiij. 

The  next  division  of  the  independent  participle  with  fir}  is  the 
generic  participle,  or  that  in  which  the  condition,  if  expressed  in 
full,  would  not  appear  in  the  form  of  a  protasis,  but  in  that  of  a 
general  relative  sentence.  This  participle  generally  has  the  article, 
but  the  article  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  bring  out  the  generic 
force,  as  we  shall  see  below.  The  presence  or  absence  of  the 
article,  however,  enables  us  to  divide  this  class  into  two  subordi- 
nate categories.  Let  us  take  up  first  those  in  which  the  article  is 
expressed.  This  class  is  the  most  numerous  of  all,  and  embraces 
over  nine  hundred  participles.  With  the  exception  of  Epic  poetry 
it  is  almost  universal. 

ov  is  also  frequently  found  with  the  articular  participle,  some- 
times side  by  side  with  fir}.  The  distinction  between  the  two, 
however,  is  generally  observed,  i.  e.,  when  ov  is  used  a  definite 
person  or  set  of  persons  is  referred  to,  and  when  fir]  is  employed 
the  reference  is  to  an  indefinite  class. 

The  first  instance  of  the  construction  with  fir}  is  in  Pindar, 
Nemea,  IV,  31  :  6  fir)  fwnfc,  cf.  also  Frag.,  81 :  to  Be  fir)  At 
fylXrepov,  who  thus  marks  a  distinct  advance  on  Homer.1  The 
lyric  poets  furnish  but  one  other  example,  and  that  from  the  late 
poet  Tiraotheus,  Frag.,  15 :  6  fir)  rivcov.  The  examples  found  in 
the  Anacreontea  and  the  Pseudophocylidea  have  not  been  included 
on  account  of  the  manifestly  late  origin  of  these  works.  The 
dramatists  do  not  use  it  very  freely,  but  it  abounds  in  prose, 
especially  the  Orators  and  Plato.  The  following  table  shows  the 
range  of  the  construction  : 

Homer Tragici  Min 3 

Hesiod Aristophanes 3 

Theognis 1  Comici  Min 5 

Pindar 1  Herodotus 14 

Timotheus 1  Thucydides 49 

Aeschylus 6  Xenophon ,  117 

Sophocles 14  Orators ■ 322 

Euripides , 23  Plato 367 

Total 926 

1  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  Pindar,  Intro.,  p.  ci. 


60     On  the  Use  of  Mi}  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Geeek. 

The  absence  of  this  construction  from  Epic  poetry,  its  small  use 
in  lyric  and  Aristophanes,  and  its  frequent  use  in  the  philosophical 
works  of  Xenophon,  in  the  orators,  and  Plato,  seem  to  point  to  the 
fact  that  it  belongs  neither  to  the  very  highest  sphere  of  the  lan- 
guage nor  to  that  of  every  day  life,  but  rather  to  that  of  argument 
and  philosophy. 

A  few  passages  that  present  points  of  special  difficulty  and  im- 
portance deserve  mention.     So  Soph.,  O.  R.,  397  : 

iya>  /jloXcov, 
6  fivBev  etSft)?  OlSitrov?,  eiravcra  viv. 

The  use  of  firj  here  has  been  the  subject  of  much  discussion,  but  is 
now  generally  explained  as  generic  with  concessive  force.  So 
Whitelaw,  Trans.  Cambridge,  Phil.  Society,  1886,  p.  17,  and  this 
explanation  is  now  accepted  by  Jebb.  Whitelaw  compares  Dem., 
XIX,  31  :  rj  ftovkrj  &  r)  firj  K<okv6elcr  atcovacu,  where  the  generic 
participle  has  a  causal  force.  A  great  number  of  examples  can  be 
cited  in  which  the  generic  participle  is  used  with  a  definite  ante- 
cedent; e.  g.,  Eurip.,  Iph.  Au.,  384:  iy<*)—6  firj  afyaXels — also 
Aristoph.,  Wasps,  1048 ;  Xen.,  Con.,  11,  4 ;  Hell.,  vi,  1,  11 ; 
Antiphon,  11,  a,  3 ;  V,  65;  Isaeus,  I,  11 ;  in,  63;  IV,  14;  Dem., 
xix,  224 ;  xxxvii,  8,  28,  57 ;  xlv,  38.  In  most  of  these  the 
antecedent  is  the  personal  pronoun.  Again  notice  Soph.,  Antigone, 
771: 

XO.  dfi(f>co  yap  avrcb  ical  KCLTaKTeZvai  voel$  ; 

KP.    ov  rr)V  ye  firj  Otyovaav  '  ev  yap  ovv  \eyet9. 

"The  fir]  implies  a  logical  condition,  a  concession  of  her  inno- 
(^06." — Humphreys. 
Philoctetes,  1006  : 

&  fiv&ev  vyies  /iw&y  iXevOepov  (frpov&v. 

Baumlein  thinks  that  ovSiv  would  be  better  here.  Kiihner,  §  515, 
N.  3,  says  that  the  mental  emotion  causes  fir}.  Jebb  thinks  that 
the  frequent  use  of  fivSkv  vyih  with  the  infinitive  causes  fir}  here 
by  analogy.  Aken  says,  "  fiy&ev  vyU?  wie  to  firj  tcaXov."  Could 
we  not  take  the  whole  expression  as  generic,  with  w  taking  the 
place  of  the  article  =  O  thou  who  thinkest,  <fec.  ? 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     61 

Eurip.,  Alcestis,  322 : 

aXX  avri/ca  iv  roZ<s  firjKer  ovari  Xei-ojiai. 

The  MSS.  vary  between  fin/circ  and  ov/ceri.  Since  the  usual  dis- 
tinction between  6  fir)  &v  and  6  ovk  a>v  is  that  the  former  refers  to 
a  man  who  is  good-for-nothing,  and  the  latter  to  one  who  is 
actually  nothing,1  and  since  the  reference  here  is  evidently  to  the 
dead,  perhaps  ovk£ti  would  be  better  than  fty/ceri,  although  both 
Kirchhoff  and  Nauck  read  fir)K€Tc.  Cf.  Thuc,  II,  44,  3  :  tcov  ovk 
ovtcov — 55,  1,  top  ovk  ovra,  both  of  which  refer  to  the  dead. 

Aristoph.,  Eccl.,  115  :  Becvbv  8'iorlv  r)  fir) ' fiire cp la,  though  not 
containing  a  participle,  is  interesting  in  view  of  Thucydides'  use  of 
ov  with  abstract  nouns.  Cf.  1, 137,  4  :  rrjv — ov  BtaXvacv — in,  95, 
2,  rrjv  ov  irepLTei^io-iv — V,  35,  2,  rrjv — ovk  avroBoo-iv — 50,  4,  rr)v 
ovk  i^ovcrlav — VII,  34,  6,  rrjv — ovKeri  eTravaycoyqv.  Cf.  also 
Plato,  Laws,  XII,  966  C:  rrjv  fir)  eiriTpoirr^v.  Postgate,  1.  c, 
thinks  that  the  distinction  between  ov  and  fir]  here  is  merely  an 
artistic  one,  fir)  being  used  in  the  nominative  case  to  avoid  hiatus, 
but  ov  being  employed  in  the  oblique  cases.  We  may  notice  first 
that  the  passage  from  Plato  is  opposed  to  this  view,  where  hiatus 
could  have  been  avoided  by  the  use  of  ovk.  Since  all  the  passages 
from  Thucydides  are  in  the  oblique  case,  it  is  impossible  to  say  with 
certainty  what  he  would  have  used  in  the  nominative,  but,  in  all 
probability,  it  would  have  been  ov  also,  for  he  wished  to  negative 
the  noun  and  yet  to  preserve  the  negative  of  fact,  and  other 
writers  did  not  care  to  follow  him  in  this  respect. 

Hdt.,  VI,  94 :  o  Aapeto?  TavTrjs  fyofievos  Trjs  Trpofyaa-LO?  Kara- 
G-rpe<f>eadaL  rr}<;  'EXXaSo?  rovs  fir)  Sovran  avroj  yrjv  re  kcu  vBwp. 
Here  Stein,  who,  as  we  have  already  seen,  thinks  Herodotus'  use 
of  the  negatives  is  not  irreproachable,  says  that  ov  would  be  better 
than  fir]  since  it  refers  to  a  past  event,  and  hence  cannot  denote 
an  indefinite  class.  But  cf.  I,  64,  where  we  have  a  similar  pas- 
sage, and  where  fir]  is  also  used.  Herodotus  merely  conforms  to 
the  general  tendency  of  the  language  which  is  more  apt  to  use  fir] 
than  ov  with  the  articular  participle. 

1Cf.  Gildersleeve,  A.  J.  P.,  I,  56;  Postgate,  Trans.  Camb.  Phil.  Soc,  1886, 
p.  56. 


62     On  the  Use  of  Mr]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Cheek. 

In  regard  to  Antiphon,  v,  65,  ifiol  fiev  yctp  tq>  firj  elpya<rfiev(py 
Maetzner  says  that  the  participle  is  causal,  and  cites  a  number  of 
passages  from  classical  Greek  to  support  the  use  of  firj  with  this 
participle.  These  will  be  taken  up  later.  For  the  present  we  can 
simply  say  that  the  tendency  just  mentioned,  to  use  fir)  with  the 
articular  participle,  would  be  a  sufficient  explanation  of  firj  here, 
even  if  the  generic  force  were  weaker.  All  through  the  passage 
the  doer  is  contrasted  with  the  non-doer  in  a  generic,  not  in  a 
specific  sense.  For  the  use  of  the  generic  participle  with  a  definite 
antecedent  see  page  60. 

A  few  passages  in  which  ov  and  firj  are  used  in  consecutive 
clauses  may  be  mentioned.  So  Isoc,  xv,  269  :  fjyovficu  yap  ra$ 
fiev  roiavrm  Teparo\oyia<;  6fiola$  elvat,  rah  OavfiaroTrodais  Tal<$ 
ovSev  fiev  Go^eXouoYM?  .  .  .  8elv  8e  tov$  irpovpyov  re  iroielv  fiov- 
Xo/ievovs  fcal  t<ov  Xoycov  tov<z  fiaraiovs  kcl\  twv  irpdl^ewv  ra$ 
fir/Sev  7rpo9  rbv  ftlov  fapovaas  dvatpelv.  In  the  former  case  we 
have  simply  useless  works  of  magic  referred  to,  while  in  the  latter 
case  we  have  a  contrast  between  a  useful  and  a  useless  class  of 
deeds,  as  the  partitive  genitive  shows.1 

Again  Aeschines,  I,  107  :  rr/v  iroktv  efSkatye  Xa-fiftdvwv  irapa 
rcov  ov  Sifcaiws  dpgdvrcov,  fidXiara  &  iavKo^avrrjo-e  rcov  virev- 
dvvcav  tovs  firfSev  r/Si/crj/coTas.  Again  the  preceding  partitive 
genitive  shows  that  we  have,  in  the  latter  case,  a  contrast  between 
two  classes. 

Lycurgus,  §  43  :  a>o~T€ — rbv  firjre  oirXa  Oifievov — firjre  to  awfia 
irapaa-^ovra — tls  av  8iKao-Trj<; — ajroXvo'ecev — rbv  ov8e  o-VfiirevOr)- 
aai  ra<z  rfjs  iraTpLBo*;  o~vfi<f>opa<;  ToXfifja'avra  /ere.  As  the  same 
person  seems  to  be  referred  to  throughout  it  is  rather  difficult  to 
see  a  reason  for  the  change  in  the  negatives.  Kiihner,  §  515,  3, 
suggests  that  in  the  first  case  the  participle  is  indefinite,  in  the 
latter  the  defendant  is  referred  to. 

Plato,  Phaedo,  79  C  :  ret  ovBeirore  Kara  ravr  e^ovra — E,  to> — 

firfheirore  Kara  ravrct  e^ovTi — Gorgias,  459  A,  toIs  firj  elBoaiv — 

B,  6  ovk  elScos.     In  these  cases  it  is  difficult  to  see  any  other 

explanation  for  the  change  in  the  negatives  except  that  in  the 

course  of  his  argument  Plato  is  passing  from  generic  to  particular, 

or  vice  versa.     See  Lodge's  note  to  the  latter  passage. 
% 
1  Cf.  Baumlein,  p.  277. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek,     63 

In  poetry  avrfp  is  often  used  where,  in  prose,  we  should  have 
an  article,  and  those  examples  of  fir]  with  dvrjp,  yvvrj  or  yjpr\fia 
would,  as  Professor  Gildersleeve  has  suggested  in  his  lectures  on 
this  subject,  fall  into  line.     Cf.  Theognis,  69  : 

TroXvirkoKias  t  i<f>L\r)o~av 

o{/TO)<?,    ft>5    av8p€?    fl7}fC€Tl    <T(p^0fieV0L. 

=  ol  fit) Ken  o-(p£6/jL€Vot ;  also  Soph.,  O.  C,  73  : 

Tt?  7T/309  avSpb?  fir)  ftXenrovTOs;  ap/ceci? ; 

and  Plato,  Rep.,  IV,  426  D :  otet  olov  r  elvai  dvBpl  fir)  iiricrTafikvio 
fierpelv  ;  In  these  latter  cases,  however,  while  we  might  explain 
avSpbs  fir)  ^Xiirovro^  and  avBpl  fir)  eirnrTafikvco  as  equivalent  to 
tov  fir)  /3\e7rovTo<;  and  tco  fir)  iiriaTafievcp,  the  participles  have  a 
more  distinctly  conditional  force  and  fir\  could  also  be  accounted 
for  in  this  way. 

We  see,  then,  how  large  a  role  the  articular  participle  plays  in 
the  history  of  fir]  with  the  participle.  The  other  division,  i.  e.  that 
in  which  the  article  is  lacking,  is  much  smaller. 

We  may  divide  this  class  also  into  two  subordinate  categories ; 
first,  that  in  which  the  participle  stands  in  the  predicative  position 
and  hence  regularly  loses  its  article,  the  negative  fir/,  however, 
being  retained ;  and  secondly,  that  in  which  the  participle  stands 
by  itself  and  seems  not  to  differ  from  the  articular  participle. 

The  first  class  is  not  very  widely  represented  in  classical  Greek. 
In  post- classical  Greek,  however,  it  is  much  more  common.1 

The  following  passages  seem  to  come  under  this  head.  A  few 
with  adjectives  are  included  in  the  list. 

Soph.,  Frag.,  755 : 

ovk  ear  air  epycov  fir)  /caXaov  eirrj  icaka. 
=  epycov  T(ov  fir)  /ca\cov. 
Euripides,  H.  F.,  311 : 

o  xpr)  yap  ovBel?  fir)  xpecov  drjaei  irork. 
1  Cf.  Gildersleeve,  Justin  Martyr,  I,  9,  4. 


64     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

With  this  example  compare  Frag.  Trag.,  Incert.,  368.  Plato 
(Alcib.,  II,  139  A) :  e<rri  ti  Bid  fikcrov  rplrov  irdOos,  b  iroiel  top 
av6p(DTTov  fxrjTe  <\>povifiov  firjre  a<j>pova.  In  §  4  the  same  words 
are  repeated  with  the  addition  of  elvcu  after  a<f>pova  showing  the 
causative  force  of  iroiel. 
Aristoph.,  Eccl.,  855 : 

irol  fiaBiel  <rv  fir)  fcaraOels  rrjv  overlap ; 

=  crv  6  fir)  tcaTa06L<s.  Cf.  Xen.,  Mem.,  I,  6,  5  :  to2$  fiev  \a/i- 
ftdvovai  dpyvpiov  dvayicaZov  icrri  direpyd^ea-Bai — ifiol  Be  fir) 
Xafiftdvovri  ov/c  dvdyicr)  BiaXeyeo'Oat.  The  antithesis  seems  to 
warrant  us  in  taking  fir)  Xafifidvovri  as  generic,  although  it  could 
be  very  well  explained  as  conditional ;  cf.  ib.,  I,  6,  6 ;  Hell.,  VI, 
1,  11  and  12;  Cyr.,  I,  3,  8 ;  Dem.,  Proem.,  xix. 

On  Thuc,  i,  118,  2,  cf.  Morris'  note.  The  passage  reads: 
ovres  fiev  real  irpo  rod  fir)  raxels. 

Xen.,  Mem.,  rv,  8,  5,  shows  how  far  the  Greeks  carried  the 
generic  idea :  ovx  opa?  on  ol  'Adr/vrjai,  BtKacrTal  ttoWovs  fiev  rjBrj 
firjBev  dBucovvTa? — direicieivav ;  here  Postgate,  1.  c,  p.  55,  ex- 
plains the  phrase  as  being  equal  to  7ro\\ov<;  t&v  /irjBev  dBacovvrayv. 
Some  such  explanation  seems  to  be  necessary.  An  exactly  similar 
example  is  Dem.,  LV,  20 :  to — elaireo-ov  vBcop  efiXayjre — 7ro\\ot>9 
fir)  <f>v\af;afievov$.  Cf.  also  Antiphon,  V,  82  :  ttoWoI — avOpcoiroi 
fir)  /cadapol  ^elpaf;. 

Plato,  Politicus,  288  E :  avvdera  iic  fir)  avvTi6efievcov  eiBrj 
yevwv.  Laws,  VII,  808  D:  e^ei  irwyrjv  rod  <j>povelv  firjirco  Karrjp- 
TVfievrjv.  Ib.,  XII,  951  B :  <j>v6fievoi  ovBev  fiaXXov  ev  evvofiov- 
fikvais  iroXecnv  rj  ical  fir}.  These  examples  are  not  quite  as  clear 
as  the  others  and  possibly  other  influences  cause  the  fir). 

Passages  like  Eurip.,  Hec,  984 : 

d\\a  G7)fiaLvuv  o~e  xpfjv 
rl  xpr)  rbv  ev  irpdaaovTa  fir)  irpdcrvovaiv  €# 
<f>i\oi<;  iirapKelv. 

may  also  be  classed  here,  but  inasmuch  as  in  such  cases  the  ele- 
ment of  doubt  enters  whether  fir]  does  not  depend  on  the  principal 
verb,   here  XPV>   they   are   ^ess   convincing   than   the  preceding 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     65 

examples.  Similar  passages  are,  however,  Eurip.,  Hipp.,  997 ; 
Xen.,  Mem.,  I,  3,  4;  H,  1,  15;  Isoc,  xn,  240;  Dem.,  xix,  334. 

In  addition  to  these  participles  that  are  used  in  the  predicative 
position  we  also  have  a  second  class  in  which  the  participle  stands 
by  itself  and  yet  has  the  negative  fir]  just  as  the  articular  participle. 
The  reason  for  dropping  the  article  is  often  not  at  hand,  indeed  we 
sometimes  find  the  participle  with  the  article  used  side  by  side  with 
that  without.  The  total  number  of  these  participles  is  not  large 
compared  with  those  that  have  the  article,  but  they  are  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  article,  while  generally  present,  is  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  bring  out  the  generic  relation. 

To  cite  some  examples  see  Eurip.,  Helena,  433  : 

e\7Tt9  Sy  etc  ye  ttXovg-'mdv  hofieov 
Xctfieiv  tc  vavrcu?  •  eic  Be  fir)  ^ovtcov  ftlov 
ovB1  el  Oekoiev,  axfreXelv  e^oiev  dv. 

It  would  be  easy  to  supply  Bofieov  here  in  which  case  the  example 
would  be  similar  to  those  that  precede.     lb.  (Rhesus,  904)  : 

oaov  Trpocrr/tcei,  fir)  yevovs  Kotvcovlav 
e^ovrt,  Kayo)  rbv  gov  ol/cTLpeo  yovov. 

=  one  who  has,  etc.     Cf;  Frag.,  1034. 

Xen.,  Cyr.,  I,  6,  6  :  olBd  ere  \eyovra  del  a>?  ovBe  Oe/ju?  eXn 
ahelo-Oat  irapa  rebv  Oecov  lirireveLV  fir)  fiadovra?  l7nrofiaxovvra<; 
vucav,  and  below  fir)  eiriarafievov?  (bis),  fir)  erireipovTa*;,  fir)  <f>v\ar- 
rofievovs.    These  participles  might  also  be  regarded  as  conditional. 

lb.,  Ill,  1,  19  :  coa-irep  dv  Tt?  TV<f>\ov$  /ecu  /ccocfrovs  icaX  fine? 
otlovv  (frpovovvras  e^airarrferetev — VIII,  1,2:  Tt?  dv  tto\l<;  virb  fir) 
ireiOofievwv  dXotn  ;  tl<;  t?  dv  <f>i\ia  virb  fir)  iretOoiievayv  BiafyvXa- 
'XQein ;    ri  K  dv    aXko   dyaObv    reXeaOelr)   virb    fir)   ireidofieveov ; 

Other  examples  are  Mem.,  I,  1,  9;  Hell.,  n,  3,  22;  Dem.,  in, 
35 :  ov/c  eo-Tiv  oirov  finSev  iyoo  iroiovaiv  rd  rcav  ttocovvtcov  elirov 
a>?  Sec  vifieiv — ib.,  xviii,  128  (adjective);  Proem.,  56,  3;  Plato, 
Phaedo,  67  B  :  fir)  ica6ap<p  yap  icaOapov  e^dirrea-Bai  fir)  ov  6efic~ 
tov  rf — ib.,  82  B ;  Theaet.,  189  E  :  m  ye  fir)  el8d>s  eroc  diro<\>aivo- 
fiai  =  as  one  who  does  not  know.  "  The  use  of  fir]  assists  the 
ironical  tone  of  Socrates  who  avoids  categorical  statements." — 


66     On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

Campbell.  Cf.  Phaedrus,  264  B,  where  Socrates  is  also  speaking  : 
ifiol  fiev  yap  eho^ev  a>?  firjSev  elSori,  and  further  Crat.,  400  E, 
401  D,  where,  however,  fir)  might  depend  on  the  principal  verb, 
but  where  it  is  most  likely  generic  and  where  Socrates  is  again  the 
spokesman. 

In  the  Sophistes  and  the  Parmenides  and  certain  parts  of  the 
Republic  we  very  frequently  find  fir)  ov,  fir)  ovra,  &c.  In  many 
cases  we  can  see  a  conditional  force  that  is  sufficient  to  explain  fir], 
but  in  others  such  interpretation  seems  strained,  and  we  have  to 
suppose  either  that  fir)  ov  =  to  fir)  ov,  or  else  that  Plato  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument  wished  to  have  "  the  predicate  in  the  same 
verbal  form  as  the  adjectival  part  of  the  subject,"  to  quote  Cook- 
Wilson,  On  some  apparent  Anomalies  in  the  Use  of  fir],  Trans. 
Oxford  Phil.  Soc,  1889-90,  pp.  16,  17.  For  an  example  of  this 
last  use,  cf.  Plato,  Sophistes,  258  C :  &o"rrep  to  fir)  tcaXbv  rjv  fir) 
tcaXov,  ovrco  Be  teal  to  fir)  ov  KaTa  tcuvtov  r)v  T€  Kal  eaTt  fir)  ov — 
also  Timaeus,  38  B :  to  fir)  ov  fir)  6v  elvac — cf.  also  such  expres- 
sions as  to  ev  fir)  8v,  in  Par.,  162  D,  163  A,  B,  165  C. 

Examples  of  the  conditional  use  have  been  included  under  that 
head.  The  following  is  an  example  of  the  generic  use  :  ov  yap  fir]- 
7tot€  tovto  bar}?,  <j)r)crLV,  elvau  fir)  iovTa,  where  fir)  iovTa  =  to,  fir) 
iovTa.  (This  is  a  quotation  from  Parmenides,  an  examination  of 
the  fragments  of  whom  reveals  but  one  other  example  similar  to 
this,  i.  e.,  ovt  itc  fir)  ovtos  iaaco  kt£.)  Other  passages  from  the 
Parmenides  are  238  A,  245  E,  262  C,  263  D ;  also  Rep.,  v,  477 
A,  478  C,  479  C. 

In  the  Phaedrus,  alongside  of  6  firj  ipwv,  &c,  we  frequently 
find  fir)  ip&v,  &c,  used  in  a  generic  sense,  although  in  a  majority 
of  cases  the  participle  forms  part  of  a  clause  depending  on  xprj  or 
the  verbal  in  -Teov,  which  may  possibly  have  influenced  the  nega- 
tive ;  cf.  227  C :  \iyei  yap  a><?  ^aptaTeov  fir)  ip&vTi  fiaXXov  r) 
ipwvTt — 235  E  :  yjpr)  fir)  ipwvTi  fiaXXov  rj  ipcovTi  %api£€o-dai — 
237  B,  C,  D :  6  tl  $  av  Kal  fir)  ip<avT€<;  eTridvfiovo-t,  tcjv  tcaXcov, 
co-fiev.  In  this  example  fir]  must  depend  on  the  participle.  Cf. 
also  238  E,  241  C,  243  D.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  note  that 
none  of  these  examples  occur  in  the  Lysianic  speech,  while  the 
articular  form  does  occur  several  times.  Nor  does  Lysias  in  his 
genuine  speeches  use  the  anarthrous  form,  so  that  we  may  have 


On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     67 

here  a  slight  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  this  speech,  or  at  least 
of  Plato's  close  imitation  of  Lysias'  style. 

Other  examples  of  firj  with  the  participle  without  the  article  are 
Kep.,  1,  332  E  (both  with  and  without  the  article) ;  iv,  430  B 
(adjective) ;  x,  599  A ;  Laws,  in,  688  B ;  vn,  795  B :  8ia<f>epei, 
8e  irafnroXv  fiadcov  fir)  fiaOovros  teal  6  <yvfivaaafievo<$  rod  fir) 
yeyvfivao-jievov — 799  C. 

The  following  examples  also  belong  here,  I  think,  but  as  in 
each  case  the  clause  as  a  whole  demands  fir]  they  are  less  con- 
vincing than  the  preceding. 

Aristoph.,  Eccl.,  578 : 

aXXa  irepatve  fibvov 
fir]re  SeBpafieva  firjT 
elprjfieva  ttco  irporepov. 

Xen.,  Cyr.,  V,  1,  11  :  el  he  y,  €<f>r),  v6fio<$  reOelr)  fir)  io-Oiovras  fir) 
iretvr)v  teal  fir)  irivovTas  fir)  Bcyfrrjv  ktc,  ib.,  Hipp.,  VII,  8  ;  Dem., 
Proem.,  56,  1,  to  Se  fir)  fiovXofievov?  ateoveiv  /3td£ecrdai — Plato, 
Soph.,  237  E,  238  B,  C;  Rep.,  11,  377  E ;  Laws,  xi,  916  C. 

4.    M^  ov  with  the  Participle, 

In  classical  Greek  literature  there  are  eight  passages  in  which 
fir)  ov  is  combined  with  the  participle.  In  order  to  understand 
this  construction  we  must  go  back  to  fir)  ov  with  the  finite  verb, 
as  the  order  of  development  seems  to  have  been  fir)  ov  with 
the  finite  verb,  fir)  ov  with  the  infinitive,  and  lastly  fir)  ov  with  the 
participle.  Under  the  first  head  it  is  used  of  an  apprehended 
negative,  chiefly  with  the  subjunctive,  after  verbs  of  fear,  etc.,  and 
equals  Latin  ne  non ;  see  any  grammar  or  lexicon  for  examples. 
From  this  use  comes  fir)  ov  with  the  infinitive,  which  is  only  used 
after  a  negative  or  negative  idea,  and,  at  first,  only  in  passionate 
language.  It  represents  fir)  ov  with  the  subjunctive  taken  up 
into  oratio  obliqua,  both  negatives  being  retained  to  preserve  the 
apprehension  and  to  show  the  practical  interest  of  the  speaker. 
Then  the  construction  became  more  and  more  common  until  it 
became  a  mere  phrase.  It  was  always  confined  to  Herodotus,  and 
Attic  writers  and  their  imitators.     The  use  of  fir)  ov  with  the 


68     On  the  Use  of  Mr]  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

participle  is  explained  in  the  same  way  as  the  use  with  the  infini- 
tive. It  denotes  the  personal,  practical  interest  of  the  speaker  in 
the  subject.  As  the  infinitive  it  is  only  used  when  a  negative 
idea  precedes.  Most  authorities  agree  in  explaining  the  parti- 
ciple in  this  construction  as  conditional,1  although  an  attempt  has 
recently  been  made  by  Whitelaw,  Trans.  Camb.  Phil.  Soc.,  1886, 
p.  38  f.,  to  prove  that  it  is  consecutive.  The  examples  are  all 
cited  by  Prof.  Gildersleeve  in  Liddell  and  Scott  under  fir)  ov,  and 
by  Goodwin,  1.  c.  The  construction  first  appears  in  Sophocles, 
O.  R.,  13  : 

8vo~d\yrjTO<;  yap  av 
€L7)v  rocdvBe  fir)  ov  KaToiKTipcov  eBpav. 

=  el  fir)  KdTOLKTipoifii.     lb.,  221  : 

ov  yap  av  fiaicpav 
fyvevov  avTo?  fir)  ovk  eyjnv  ti  o~vfi/3o\ov. 

Cf.  Jebb,  1.  c,  and  Goodwin,  §  511.  The  latter  translates — "for 
I  should  not  be  very  far  on  the  track,  if  I  were  attempting  to  trace 
it  alone,  without  a  clue/'  thus  supplying  another  protasis,  which 
Jebb  does  also.     lb.,  O.  C,  360  : 

r}/cei<;  yap  ov  Kevr]  ye  -   -   -   - 

-  -   -   -  fir)  ou%l  Belfi  ifiol  <f>epovo~d  ti. 

There  is  an  irregularity  here  also,  as  ov  Kevr]  is  virtually  positive, 
not  negative.  Cf.  Jebb,  and  Kuhner,  §  516,  5,  N.  8.  The  latter 
thinks  it  should  not  be  classed  with  the  other  examples,  but  with 
such  as  ovk  dpvovfiai  fir)  ov%  ovtcds  e^eiv.    He  compares  O.  II.,  57. 

Hdt.,  II,  110,  2  :  ovk  &v  81/catov  elvai  eardvai  efiirpoo-Qev  tcov 
eiceLvov  dvadwfidrcov  fir)  ovk  virepfiaXkofievov  rolat  epyoto-i,  = 
el  fir)  virepftdWrfTai ;  ib.,  VI,  9  :  KarappdoBrjcrav  fir)  ov  Svvarol 
yevtovrai  virepfiaXeaOai  kclI  ovtco  ovtc  rr)v  MlKtjtov  oloi  re  ecoac 
egeXelv  firj  ovk  eovres  vavKpdrope*;.  (Their  thought  was  el  fir) 
vavKpdrope?  ea/iev).  Ib.,  VI,  106,  3  :  elvdrrj  Be  ovk  egeXevaeo-Oai 
efyaaav  firj  ov  irXrjpeos  eovro?  tov  kvkXov.  "They  refused  to 
march  out  on  the  ninth  day  (and  thereafter)  until  the  moon  should 

1  Cf.  Goodwin,  M.  and  T.,  \  818 ;  Jebb,  Appendix  to  Soph.,  O.  R.,  p.  221. 


On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     69 

be  full "  (edv  fir)  irXjpffl  rj).  Dem.  (LVni,  13)  :  Tt?  av  ePovXrjOt) 
fAi/cpa  /cepSdvai,  efjbv  rd  rj/jLLcrrj  \aj3eiv  ;  ovtf  av  el$  fir)  ov  o-vvet&obs 
eavroj  avKofyavTOvvTi,  =  el  fir)  avvyhei.  Plato  Lysis,  212,  D  : 
ovk  dp  icrrl  cfrCkov  toj  (JhXovvti  ovSev  fir)  ov/c  dvrt(j)iXovv  as  el  fir) 
avTicfriKeZ.  Philemon,  Frag.,  213,  5 :  ovt  dvr)p  irevr)*;  yeyobs  fir) 
ov  reyyvv  fiaOcbv  BvvatT  av  do~<ba\<o<;  ^rjv  tov  filov  =  el  fir)  fiddoi. 

We  see,  then,  that  with  the  exception  of  two  passages  (Soph., 
O.  E.,  221,  and  Hdt.,  vi,  106, 3)  these  participles  are  all  plainly  con- 
ditional and  even  those  two  may  be  explained  as  sueh  without  any 
undue  straining  of  the  language.  It  is  hardly  necessary  therefore 
to  seek  a  remote  explanation,  as  Whitelaw  does,  when  one  is  so 
near  at  hand. 

Two  other  passages  where  fir)  ov  occurs  with  nouns  may  be 
mentioned.  Isoc,  X,  47  :  Tavrvs  Be  rifirjs  Tv^eiv  ofy  oldv  re 
fir)  ov  rbv  iroXv  rrj  yvcofiy  8ta<f>epovTa.  Dem.,  XIX,  123  :  ^aXeiral 
Xaftelv  al  tcov  <&(DKe<DV  TroXei?  fir)  ov  ypovw  KTe. 

5.  Miscellaneous. 

There  still  remain  to  be  discussed  a  few  passages  which,  either  on 
account  of  the  uncertain  state  of  the  text  or  of  the  peculiar  nature 
of  the  participles  themselves,  could  not  be  classed  elsewhere. 

The  Homeric  Hymns  were  composed  at  different  times,  but  they 
all  doubtless  belong  near  the  Epic  age,  and  they  are  Epic  in  the 
avoidance  of  firj  with  the  participle.  The  only  example  noted  is 
in  the  Hymn  to  Hermes,  line  92 : 

Kai  re  IBcbv  fir)  ISobv  elvai  ical  /caxfrb?  dicovaa*;. 

There  is  a  lacuna  just  before  the  line,  and  this  prevents  us  from 
deciding  as  to  the  true  nature  of  the  negative.  It  appears,  how- 
ever, to  be  due  to  the  infinitive.  The  phrase  at  a  later  period 
became  a  proverb.     Cf.  Dem.,  xxv,  89. 

The  Batrachomyomachia  belongs  to  a  later  date  than  the  Homeric 
Hymns,  and  by  some  is  thought  not  to  belong  to  the  classical  period 
at  all.     There  is  one  example  of  fir)  with  the  participle  in  it,  i.  e., 

line  235: 

^lydpira^  S'  rjfivv  erdpcov  irepl  redveuorayv 

Kal  ftdXe  JJpao-o-atov  fir)ir(o  yalr)<;  ein^avra. 

6 


70     On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

firjiray  yair)?  iirifiavTa  =  irplv  yatrj<;  bri/Srjvait  but  in  classical 
Greek  fir]  c.  ptc.  =  irpiv  c.  inf.  is  only  found  in  clauses  which  of 
themselves  demand  fir]  (cf.  p.  1 7),  and  this  is  not  the  case  here. 
There  is,  however,  another  reading  which  Stadtmiiller  gives  on 
the  authority  of  MSS.  examined  by  him,  i.  e. : 

ical  f3a\e  UpcMrcralov  vrjSvo?  €9  fieaov  r\irap. 

This  seems  to  suit  the  general  character  of  the  poem  better  than 
the  former  reading. 

Aeschylus,  Septem,  436 : 

Tt?  avBpa  KOfiird^ovra  fir)  rpeaa^  fievet; 

Verrall  makes  fir)  rpeo-as  =  ware  fir)  rpeaat,  but  Paley's  explana- 
tion is  perhaps  better,  i.  e.f  "  the  not  trembling  is  regarded  as  a 
condition  of  withstanding  the  boastful  foe,  i.  e.,  no  one  who  does 
tremble  will  meet  him."  He  compares  Eurip.,  Heraclidae,  533, 
and  Isoc,  vin,  41,  which  are,  however,  more  plainly  conditional 
than  the  present  passage ;  cf.  Jebb  to  Soph.,  O.  C,  360,  who  adopts 
a  similar  explanation  of  a  difficult  negative  there.  Mr]  might 
possibly  depend  on  the  negative  character  of  the  question. 
Soph.,  O.  R.,  57  : 

ft>9  OvBiv  €<TTl  OVT6  TTVpyOS  OVT€  VdVS 

epr)fio$  avSpwv  fir)  gvvoi/covvrcov  eaco. 

It  is  possible  to  take  dvBpcov  fir)  %vvolkovvtcov  together  as  genitive 
absolute  with  conditional  force.  But  as  this  would  simply  be  a 
repetition  of  the  preceding  thought,  commentators  are  almost 
unanimous  in  taking  avSpwv  with  eprjfios  and  making  the  parti- 
ciple merely  epexegetic  of  it.  In  this  case  fir]  is  really  superfluous 
and  is  due  to  the  tendency  to  repeat  it  after  negative  ideas,  cf. 
Kiihner,  §  516,  5,  N.  8.  In  O.  R.,  1530,  fir)  is  due  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  irplv  av  clause  : 

ware — firjSev  d\j3i&w  irpiv  &v 

repfia  rod  fSLov  irepdarj  firjBev  akyeivov  iraOcov. 

Antigone,  1042  : 

ovft  &)?  fiiaafia  rovro  fir)  rpeaa<;  iyo) 
BdirreLv  iraptjcreo  icelvov. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     71 

Ellendt  cites  fir)  Tpeaas  as  an  example  of  fir]  with  the  participle, 
but  ov  and  fir]  though  separated  must  be  taken  together  and  with 
irapr)o-(0. 

Philoctetes,  171  : 

OLKTLpO)  VLV  676)7',  07Tft>? 
fir]  TOV  K7)Sofl€VOV  ffporayv 
fl7]8e   %VVTpO<j)OV  Oflfl    €%0)V 

voael. 

The  force  of  fir]  is  much  discussed  here.  Jebb  makes  it  generic 
with  causal  force.  Ellendt  says,  "  non  eVet  firjSels  rer/Serai,  sed 
Kaiirep  firjSevbs  /crjSofievov,"  but  this  wrong  use  of  Kaiirep  has 
already  been  mentioned.  Kiihner,  §  515,  3,  3,  takes  the  participle 
as  causal  pure  and  simple.  Perhaps  the  mental  emotion  shown 
by  ol/cTupa)  and  the  question  indicated  by  oVo)?  have  something  to 
do  with  the  negative. 

lb.,  935 :  C09  fie6r]o-cov  firjiroS*  wS'  opa  iraKiv.  Again  we 
have  a  difficult  negative  and  scholars  vary  in  their  explanation. 
Kiihner,  §  515,  3,  explains  as  future  participle  expressing  purpose; 
Baumlein,  p.  295,  as  purpose  or  generic,  "  wie  in  der  absicht  oder 
wie  einer  der  nicht  will ; "  Jebb  as  subjective.  Aken,  p.  230, 
says  it  is  surprising  even  for  Sophocles.  I  believe  the  generic 
force  is  sufficient  to  account  for  fir).  Cf.  Xen.,  Cyr.,  1,  3,  8  :  rov 
"Kvpov  eirepecrOaL  irpoirerS)^  <w?  av  Trails  fir)8iirco  virorrrTf]o'o'wv. 

Eurip.,  Iph.  Au.,  1586: 

aira?  eirrj^rjae  o-Tparos, 
aekirrov  elo~i86vT€s  i/c  6eS)V  twos 
(frdo-fi,  ov  ye  fir)&  opeofievov  tticttis  Traprjv. 

The  participle  seems  to  be  purely  adversative  =  "  of  whom,  though 
not  seen,  a  pledge  was  present,"  and  hence  the  negative  should  be 
ov.  These  closing  lines  are  bracketed  by  many  editors,  and  we 
seem  to  have  here  an  evidence  of  later  authorship. 

The  Epistles  of  Aeschines  are  universally  recognized  as  spurious, 
and  their  late  origin  appears  to  be  attested  by  some  anomalous  uses 
of  firj.  Cf.  X,  2:  SiarptfiovTcov  yap  rjficov  TroWas  rjfiepa?  eV'IXift) 
Kal  firj  7r\7)povfievcov  rrjs  0ea<?  t&v  rd<fxov,  rjv  Si  /10c  yvoofirj  fikveiv. 
The  participle  is  purely  circumstantial,  and  ov  would  be  expected. 
Again,  in  §  6  of  the  same  Epistle,  we  have:  r)  8e  vv/kj>t)  ISovaa  top 


72     On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

K.Lfiwva  a>9  fiijBev  avro}  kclkov  o-vveiBora  kt£.  Here  fir)  is  unjusti- 
fiable, unless  we  explain  it  as  generic,  as  in  the  passage  from 
Sophocles  treated  above.  Again,  Epis.  vn,  4 :  vfilv  Be  tt)<;  evvouas, 
rjv  airovTL  /jlol  irapeayeaOe  dopvPovvre?  Btj  teal  fit)  OeXovre?  dicpod- 
o~aadai  ra>v  XocBopovvroov  rjfias,  7roXXr)v  %dpiv  e^o).  Mtj  cannot 
be  defended,  unless  we  take  it  with  the  following  infinitive.  Again, 
Epis.  XII,  3 :  ovk  dXa^ovevofiac  irpo<;  v/jlcl?  a>?  7roXXd  irdvv  Xaftelv 
e^ov  pot,  'xprjfiara  fit)  Xafiwv.  This  example  is  the  more  surprising 
as  we  have  had  occasion  to  notice  that  this  subjective  a>9  invariably 
takes  ov  in  Greek  of  the  best  period,  except  when  the  principal 
verb  demands  fj,rj,  and  frequently  even  then. 

Plato,  Philebus,  60  C  :  ovkovv  tg3  Xoyw  iireipaOriiiev  %<wpk 
etcarepov  e/carepov  devres  eh  rbv  ftlov  eicaoT<ov  aju/crov  fiev  rjBovrjv 
fypovqaei,  fypovnow  8*  axravTco*;  r)Bovf)<;  /jbrjBe  to  a/jbi/cporaTov  e^ov- 
aav.  We  may  take  the  participle  as  equivalent  to  coo-re  with  the 
infinitive,  or  explain  the  fir/  as  being  due  to  its  predicative  position. 

In  Pseudo-Plato,  Anterastae,  135  A :  rj  tc-o>9  alcrxvvofieOa,  cocnrep 
e<f>r)  rovs  fJLvrjo-rfjpas  "Ofjurjpos,  firj  cl%lovvt<ov  elvai  Tiva  dXXov 
oo-ti?  evreiveu  to  rogov,  firj  must  be  taken  with  elvai.  Cf.  Thuc, 
VII,  50,  3 :  firj  (j>avepo3<;  ye  d\-i<ov  'y]rrj(f)l^eo'dai — Dem.,  XXI,  205 ; 
xxxvi,  48. 

In  the  following  passages  from  the  Laws  firj  seems  to  be  due  to 
the  general  character  of  the  sentences :  v,  733  C,  ravra  Be  irdvTa 
earl  irXrjdei  teal  fieyeOet,  zeal  o-cfroBpoTwo-iv  Io-otwctl  re  koX  oaa  evav- 
ria  earl  iraai  rols  toiovtois  777)09  j3ovXr)o~i,v  Bca^epovrd  re  kol 
firjBev  Bta^epovra  7rpo9  aipeaiv  e/cdo~T(ov — X,  901  C,  ov  yap  irov, 
orav  ye  dBvvarov  f)  t&v  dirdvToav  eirLfieXelaBai,  Tore  d/ieXeia 
earai  t<ov  o-fiL/cp&v  rj  fieydXcov  fjurj  ein/JLeXovfieva),  ktc  ;  XI,  913  A, 
Orjaavpov  Be  Xeyay/nev — ov  tis  eOero  p.rj  T(ov  ifi&v  cov  irarepayv, 
yrf\&  evpelv  iroTe.  Oeois  ev^aifjLrjv. 

We  have  already  noticed  under  the  head  of  the  conditional 
participle  passages  in  which  cause  and  condition  seem  to  be  united 
in  the  participle,  the  result  being  that  it  is  negatived  by  fit].  We 
have  now  to  consider  the  few  passages  in  classical  Greek  in  which 
an  apparently  purely  causal  participle  takes  this  negative.  Some 
scholars  even  maintain  that  this  is  a  legitimate  construction.  So 
Maetzner  to  Antiphon,  v,  65 :  "non  abhorret  a  Graecorum  usu  fiij 
particula  cum  participio  copulata."    See  also  Kuhner,  §  515,  3,  3 ; 


On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     73 

Gayler,  Particularum  Graeci  Sermonis  Negativarum  Disputatio, 
p.  279.  And  quite  recently  Cook- Wilson,  Trans.  Oxford  Phil. 
Soc,  1889-90,  has  made  a  systematic  attempt  to  prove  that  firj 
with  the  causal  participle  is  justified  by  analogy  with  the  causal 
relative  with  yJ). 

Let  us  proceed  to  examine  the  passages  and  see  what  justifica- 
tion there  is  for  this  argument.  That  the  causal  participle  takes 
ov  even  when  it  could  easily  have  a  conditional  force  is  shown  by 
Eurip.,  Bacchae,  271  : 

6pa<rv<;  re  8vvarb<;  ical  Xeyetv  oZo9  re  avrjp 
tcatc6$  7To\lttj<;  yiyverai  vovv  ovtc  e%a>z>. 

where  we  must  translate  "  since  he  has  no  sense,"  not  "  if,  &c. ; " 
cf.  also  Plato,  Apol.,  20  C. 

The  first  passage  noted  in  which  firf  is  apparently  used  with 
the  causal  participle  is  Thuc,  I,  77,  3  :  ov  rov  irXeovos  /j,tj 
arepLa-KOjMevoL  r)(a?LV  ^X0V<TLV'  M  o-Tepio-tco/jLevoi  gives  the  ground 
of  xapiv  exovaiv,  and  hence  should  have  ov.  It  is  possible  to 
see  a  slight  conditional  force  in  the  participle,  and  perhaps  the 
fact  that  ov  precedes  led  to  the  use  of  p,r)  to  avoid  a  repetition.1 
lb.,  IV,  73,  4 :  f}o-v%aZov  Be  koI  avrol  fjurj  eiriovTwv  (sc.  twv 
Aa/ceSaifAovlcov).  The  participle  is  purely  causal  here,  and  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  justification  for  using  fit].  We  can  only 
take  refuge  in  a  corrupt  state  of  the  text.     Cf.  Kriiger,  ad  loc. 

Xen.,  Cyr.,  Ill,  1,  37  :  ovBe  yap  ecXfj^dat,  eyayye  alyjiaKoarov 
ravrnv  vofii^a),  crov  ye  p^iroairoTe  <f>vyovTO<i  rjfid^.  Again  fir)  is 
apparently  unjustified.  lb.,  VI,  3,  15 :  ol  8*  aXXoi,  wo-irep  el/cb? 
fni$ev  elBores,  ifCTreirXeyfjuevoi  rjo-av.  Cook- Wilson  says  that  "per- 
haps elBoras  should  be  read  or  elBores  may  stand  by  a  kind  of 
attraction  for  elBoras,  in  which  case  firj  would  be  natural."  And 
fiwBev  elSores  might  stand  for  ol  finBev  elBores. 

Dem.,  XL.IV,  28  :  &aff  r/yeto-dai  Belv — rrjv  irarpwav  ovaiav 
e^ecv,  icf>  a  t  elo-eirotrjOr),  fir}  6W09  ev  tS  oXkco  vlov,  teal  tovtcov 
tcvpLos  yeveadai.  M77  with  the  causal  participle  can  here  be 
explained  as  forming  part  of  the  infinitive  clause.2 

1  For  Hdt.,  in,  65,  see  p.  53 ;  Thuc,  1, 118,  2,  p.  64. 

2 For  Xen.,  Mem.,  1,  6,  12,  see  p.  54;  Antiphon,  11,  £,  4,  ditto;  Antiphon,  v, 
65,  p.  62 ;  Lysias,  xxvi,  10,  p.  38. 


74     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

Aeschines,  II,  62 :  Xoycov  yap  firj  TrporeOevTOiv  eU  rrjv  varepav 
iKKkwcTlav,  twv  Be  7rpoe8pcov  kco\v6vt(qv,  ovk  evrjv  elirelv.  The 
participle  seems  to  be  causal,  but  the  passage  is  doubtless  corrupt. 
Cf.  Cobet,  V.  L.,  p.  353. 

Plato,  Timseus  Locrus,  101  D,  and  Epinomis,  985  B,  are  also 
apparently  causal,  but  are  not  included  on  account  of  the  spurious 
character  of  these  writings. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  passages  in  which  yJ]  is  used  with  the 
causal  participle,  and  which  do  not  admit  of  explanation,  are  in 
reality  very  few.  Perhaps  the  trouble  is  with  our  text,  but  cf. 
A.  J.  P.,  xii,  520,  where  Prof.  Gildersleeve,  speaking  of  Cook- 
Wilson's  paper,  calls  them  "  free  negatives."  These  examples, 
however,  taken  in  connection  with  those  in  which  cause  and  con- 
dition meet,  show  us  how  easily  later  writers  could  be  led  to  feel 
that  firj  was  the  proper  negative  to  be  used  with  the  causal 
participle. 

In  tabular  form  the  results  of  the  preceding  pages  in  which 
the  independent  participle  with  /jltj  has  been  discussed  appear  as 
follows : 


On  the  Use  of  M77  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     75 


Authors. 

*3 

a  g 

—  — 

1| 

a  0 

II 
P 

"2 
a 
0 

a 
0 
« 

& 
1 

6 
S 

I 

- 

[3 

£ 

"3 

I 

— 

i 

a 
O 

d 
0 

-  — 

P 

"C.2 

§ 

3  & 

S  q 

0 

.2 

!& 

*3 

1 

Ph 
0 

ja 

-*> 

1 

-» 
0 

,p- 

a. 

4 

i 
1 

3 
g 

Homer 

Homeric  Hymns 

"T 

1 
1 

Hesiod 

0 

Lyric  Poets,  not  in- 
cluding Pindar.... 

2 

2 

1 

6 

14 

23 

3 

3 

5 

14 

49 

117 

322 

367 

926 

4 

Pindar 

1 

jEschylus 

11 
11 

30 

4 

8 

6 

30 

42 

52 

161 

202 

560 

3 

1 

3 

...... 

3 
2 

14 
4 

35 

"3"" 

1 
4 
1 

18 

Sophocles 

1 
1 

35 

Euripides 

3 

1 
1 

3 

64 

Tragici  Min 

9 

Aristophanes. 

1 

16 

Comici  Min 

(I)1 
1 
1 
3 
5 
13 

(I)1 
3 

'"2" 
3 

6 
5 

11+2 
51 

Herodotus 

Thucydides 

97 

Xenophon 

7 
4 
3 

12 
3 

31 

196 

Orators 

1 

1 

516 

Plato 

626 

Total 

25+1 

19 

50 

8+1 

23 

1646+2 

We  see,  then,  from  this  table  that,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the 
dependent  participle,  so  in  that  of  the  independent,  the  construc- 
tion is  but  little  used  in  Epic  and  Lyric  poetry,  but  begins  to  be 
employed  quite  freely  by  the  dramatists,  especially  Sophocles,  after 
whom  it  is  exceedingly  common.  The  two  main  lines  of  develop- 
ment are  the  pure  conditional  and  the  generic  participle  with  the 
article. 

III. 


Conclusion. 

In  conclusion  let  us  first  unite  the  table  on  page  48  and  the 
one  above,  which  sum  up,  respectively,  the  dependent  and  the 
independent  uses  of  firj  with  the  participle : 

1  From  Philemon,  hence  after  the  classical  period. 


76     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 


'STOOX 

COr-ii©        N«ON«5WNWN05!OOsa 
r-t                           r-i  (MOO  OC 

©1 

+ 

00 
<M 
I© 
©1 

•snoouBiposjH 

|i-h    :       :   :iH^t"i-i   :   :   :   :cmooco»© 

CO 
CO 

•apTppjBj  eifl  my*,  no  Url 

:    :    :       :    :    :  eo    :    :    :  C^co    :    :  th  »h 

rH 

+ 

00 

■jnotoiA  oidppjBj  oiianao 

:    :    :        :    :    :    :       :        :    :    :i-h     co 

o 

•a^Borpajd  'opj^iy 
^noqjtM  ojdppjjBj  ouanao 

:   i   :       :   :   :   jwrHi-i   •   •   j^^co 

- 

•appxy 
qp  atdpi^JCBj  ouaaao 

:    :    :     ©*  rH  co  t*  co  co  co  *©  rt<  o»  r~  <m  i>- 
:   :   :               hn            rHTtirH<Mco 

.       .       .                                                                                     rHCOCO 

c© 
©1 
a* 

•9AISS90n00 

:::     .  {  .  •    j  <n  eo  »-h  co    :  co  co  <m  ^  t^ 

CO 

TBnopxpnoO  9-m<I 

:   :           :hhm            co^icco© 
:    :           :                     ■  ■             —km 

o 

CO 

•pirBJBJ  10 

IBOiprnpuy  qJ9A  m^lS. 
pire  eidpRJBJ  iBnoptpuoQ 

:   :   :       :   :   :  »-h  i-h   :   :  'w'i-i  »-h  co  »o  co 

+ 

•0ai^b8oxi9^ui 

:::     r-t   :©*   •  •  ;«h-  ......  :coi©co 

00 
(M 

•AjB^U9raap!dng 

:   I   i       :   i   •  "*  rH    •   •   •   j  ^  <m  "5  —• 

1^ 

•9AmugiT[ 

:    :    :                                       ©*rnooco 

*1 

'Url  i»  suoTS89Jdxa  IBopdijjg 

:   :   :       :   :— kmc<j   :c<i   :   jr*  — inh 

o 

tftAflVpH  DU9U9f) 

- :.  :   : ...  ©q    ♦  -^  ■**<  i-h  »-<  <m  o*  c*  i©  o*  — i  os 

!      5      S                    I                rH                                     i-i  CO  "T 

OS 
<M 

*qJ9A  9^nrg  pUB 

«  '0  'oidpi^jrej  jBuopxpuoo 

— ,    :   t       ':   :   :  co  t~    :^n»ooo»o 
:   :       :   :   :           :            i-imojn 

•                                     rH 

o' 

<M 

•89S11BO  IBUJJ 

:   :   :       :   :.-hco   •   '   '   ic*r-nacoiQ 
:    :    :       :    :           :    :    :    :             »-' 

8 

•8uUB9Mg  jo  sqjt9A 

:::       irn   :   :rH    : i-h    :   :   :   :»-h    : 

"* 

•9ApB^dO 

i-(      |00         NH      JrHOS      j  CO  »H      j  C<>  <M  t~  Ctt 

CO 

•9ApBJ9duiI 

'      I(M         t-  r-(  l©  00  ©J  rH  ©1  Tt<  I©  «C  rH  "^  © 

00 
CO 

i 

© 

I 

< 

Homer... 

Homeric  Hymns 

Lyric  Poets,  exclusive  of 

Pindar 

Pindar 

Sophocles 

Euripides. 

Tragici  Minores 

Comici  Minores 

Thucydides. 

Orators 

1 

J 

- 

■ 

On  the  Use  of  Mr)  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     77 

We  see,  then,  that  we  have  studied  in  round  numbers  twenty- 
five  hundred  (2,500)  examples  of  pr}  with  the  participle.  Of 
these  about  one-third  (882)  are  indebted  for  the  special  character 
of  their  negative  to  the  principal  verb  on  which  they  depend, 
while  in  the  remaining  two-thirds  it  is  the  nature  of  the  participle 
itself  that  demands  fir}.  At  the  bottom  of  this  latter  class  is 
found  to  lie  the  conditional  proposition,  although  the  participle 
may  be  classed  under  the  heads  of  generic  and  concessive  in  addi- 
tion to  the  pure  conditional.  When  ov  appears  in  any  of  the  above 
categories  it  can  usually  be  explained  by  recourse  to  the  principle 
of  adhaerescence,  or  of  oratio  obliqua,  or  to  the  retention  of  the 
negative  of  fact.  But  very  few  cases  have  been  noted  where  some 
such  explanation  cannot  be  legitimately  employed. 

Special  attention  has  been  called  to  the  frequency  with  which 
cause  and  condition  meet,  and  the  ease  with  which  later  writers 
could  be  led  into  the  habit  of  using  fitf  with  the  purely  causal 
participle.  We  ought  also  to  notice  under  the  head  of  the  supple- 
mentary participle  the  not  infrequent  use,  from  Sophocles  on,  of 
fir}  with  the  participle  after  verbs  of  knowing  and  thinking  when 
the  will  of  the  speaker  enters,  which  was  another  point  at  which 
the  later  use  of  fir}  with  the  participle  made  inroads  on  the  classi- 
cal use  of  ov. 

As  to  the  usage  of  the  individual  authors  but  little  has  been 
said  in  the  preceding  pages,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  absence  of  a 
suitable  basis  of  comparison,  a  page  of  poetry  not  being  by  any 
means  equal  to  a  page  of  prose.  Still  we  may  gather  from  the 
preceding  table  some  points  of  interest  and  profit.  Notice  first 
the  almost  entire  absence  of  the  construction  from  Epic  poetry 
and  its  small  use  in  Lyric.  Doubtless  the  themes  treated  had 
much  to  do  with  this  infrequent  use,  but  it  also  seems  probable 
that  in  this  early  literature  the  participle  itself  was  not  felt  to  be 
as  good  a  substitute  for  the  finite  verb  as  in  later  times.  Be  this 
as  it  may,  it  is  nevertheless  a  fact  that  it  is  not  until  we  come  to 
dramatic  poetry,  and  especially  to  Sophocles,  that  we  find  the  con- 
struction used  with  any  freedom. 

Of  the  dramatic  poets  Aristophanes  is  lowest  in  the  use  of  fir} 
with  the  participle.  Counting  8000  lines  for  Aeschylus,  10000 
for  Sophocles,  26000  for  Euripides  and  15000  for  Aristophanes, 


78     On  the  Use  of  Mrf  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek. 

the  average  per  10000  lines  without  counting  the  examples  from 
the  fragments  is :  Aeschylus  36,  Sophocles  61,  Euripides  37,  and 
Aristophanes  24.  We  cannot  ascribe  this  small  use  in  Aristophanes 
to  the  participle  itself  as  by  his  time  it  had  reached  its  full  develop- 
ment, but  it  must  be  due  to  the  simplicity  and  directness  of  his 
style. 

Of  the  historians  Xenophon  in  the  Anabasis  and  the  Hellenika 
has  a  lower  percentage  than  either  Herodotus  or  Thucydides,  while 
both  the  former  fall  much  below  the  latter.  Xenophon  has  on 
an  average  9  —  per  one  hundred  Teubner  pages,  Herodotus  9  -f-, 
and  Thucydides  26,  which  again  coincides  with  the  simplicity  of 
the  style  of  the  former  writers,  and  the  close,  argumentative  style 
of  the  latter. 

Of  the  orators  Antiphon  (Thucydides'  teacher  (?))  has  the  highest 
average,  having  64  examples  to  one  hundred  pages,  Deinarchus  the 
lowest  with  but  9  — .  The  averages  of  the  others  are  as  follows  : 
Andocides  26,  Lysias  27,  Isocrates  40,  Isaeus  39,  Demosthenes  28, 
Aeschines  20,  Lycurgus  40.  Notice  that  all  but  Deinarchus  and 
Aeschines  have  a  higher  average  than  Thucydides,  who  stands  at 
the  head  of  the  historians. 

Xenophon  in  his  other  writings,  exclusive  of  the  Anabasis  and 
the  Hellenika,  averages  30  per  one  hundred  pages,  while  Plato's 
average  is  38.  Thus  in  oratory  and  philosophy  fir)  with  the 
participle  reached  its  highest  development. 

We  see,  then,  from  the  tragic  poets  on  a  steadily  increasing  use 
of  fit]  with  the  participle,  both  in  regard  to  the  actual  number  of 
participles  used,  and  in  the  variety  of  constructions  in  which  they 
are  employed.  We  can  see  also  how  later  writers  noticing,  but 
not  fully  understanding  these  legitimate  constructions,  and  striv- 
ing for  more  forcible  and  energetic  expressions,  would  be  led  to 
extend  more  and  more  the  use  of  yJ\  with  the  participle  into 
domains  where  it  properly  did  not  belong,  until  they  finally  felt 
that  this  and  this  alone  was  its  legitimate  negative. 


On  the  Use  of  Mrj  with  the  Participle  in  Classical  Greek.     79 

IV. 

Bibliography. 

The  following  are  the  principal  works  consulted  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  paper.     Others  have  been  cited  in  the  foot-notes. 

Aken. — Die  Grundzuge  der  Lehre  von  Tempus  und  Modus  im 
Griechischen,  Rostock,  1861. 

Baumlein. — Untersuchungen  iiber  Griechische  Partikeln,  Stutt- 
gart, 1861. 

Kuhner. — Ausfiihrliche  Grammatik,  Hanover,  1869. 

Madvig. — Syntax  der  Griechischen  Sprache,  Braunschweig,  1884. 

Goodwin. — Moods  and  Tenses,  Boston,  1890. 

Kniger-Pokel. — Griechische  Sprachlehre,  Leipzig,  1891. 

In  addition  to  the  articles  by  Prof.  Gildersleeve  cited  in  the 
foot-notes,  I  am  also  deeply  indebted  to  his  lectures  on  the  parti- 
ciple and  the  negatives  which  it  has  been  ray  privilege  to  attend. 


reTHEJ 


OF 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL   BE   ASSESSED    FOR    FAILURE   TO    RETURN 
THIS    BOOK    ON    THE    DATE    DUE.    THE    PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY     AND     TO     $1.00     ON     THE     SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

.11 1M     ft     1945 

JUN  4    1945 

Al     R       "        :        ' 

|W>-«" 

• 

!.D  21  -100m-12,,48  (8796») 

RETURN               MAIN  CIRCULATION 

TO— +> 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-3405 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JUIv  7  4  J996 

REHFIVFP 

HIM    1  U  1QQC 

J  UN     It   133* 

OBMOULATION  DE 

PL 

UtL  US  W! 

II) 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


